Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Crazy but not so crazy idea for su-57 on K

Least crazy idea: put arrestor hook on it.

Exactly...

but then you could also build a carrier with huge nets over it that aircraft fly into and stop completely and then they could have large cranes on the deck that reach up and pluck the aircraft out of the nets and place them on the deck... but I think that would require more development and cost than arrester hooks too.

When designing the F-35, they made a mistake. Experts told which 1
Any shortcomings of the F-35B won't be attributable to it being STOVL.
THE RUSSIANS WON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.

Just good morning news lads, the question of course is - what will be chosen by MoD next year. So far just an interesting project.  Universal carrier sounds nice. But expeditionary means colonial wars?      

In Russia, developed a draft expeditionary ship for the Navy

MOSCOW, December 3 - RIA News. Designers of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) made a universal project of an expeditionary vessel for the Russian Navy to implement several tasks at once, USC head Alexei Rakhmanov told reporters on Monday.

Earlier, he said that in Russia it is planned to build an expedition ship that will combine the functions of an aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and landing ship.
"In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks," said Rakhmanov.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20181203/1539124311.html

VSTOL in numbers continued:

COST
Su-57 programme  cost (after wiki/RIA) : ₽60bn (in 2010 it was ~$3bn, currently $1bn     but of course this is not realistic now). Why VSTOL should be much more expensive? engines are there, avionics, radars, coatings, materials too,  OAK factories are up and running.Weapons ready.



VSTOL a desired feat or handicap?
Let's look at numbers. Of course numbers can change as geopolitical situation changes but look at current snapshot. We already know that Japan plans to buy extra 100 (how many F-35B well see), Japanese were planning long time to have CVs back.. this time with F-35Bs. Japan buys Korea is next, then IMHO Australia.  After wiki below:

Orders...........................USMC..........USN..............Royal..Navy...Italy...Turkey
F-35C..................80...............260...............0..................0.......0

F-35B..................340.................................138..............30......32


So far we have:  540 F-35B vs 340 F-35C.  Thus all navies outside US having F-35 ordered- VSTOL. There are 60% more VSTOL F-35B planned than CATOBAR F-35C..
Now you can answer yourself is for navy VSTOL a handicap or perhaps desired feature?




Navies with CATOBAR: US, French, (future partially Chinese)
STOBAR: India, Russia ( is working to replace current fighters with VSTOL), Chinese

VSTOL/skijump)  - UK, Italy, Spain, Turkish, soon Russian, Chinese (partially )  and Japanese


Let's see if  whether India will decide to buy Russian VSTOL fighter.      

Gibraltar wrote: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.

I think that avionics, weapons, engines, materials is  mandatory to use in new fighter (if should be same generation) to unify logistics as much  as possible.

Gibraltar wrote:
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.

VSTOL perhaps yes, xSTOL (30-60m STOL) perhaps possible, not sure if feasible though

GarryB wrote:but then you could also build a carrier with huge nets over it that aircraft fly into and stop completely and then they could have large cranes on the deck that reach up and pluck the aircraft out of the nets and place them on the deck... but I think that would require more development and cost than arrester hooks too.

VSTOL rolling landing is best option tho no special infrastructure is required

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Any shortcomings of the F-35B won't be attributable to it being STOVL.
THE RUSSIANS WON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.

well learnign on ther's mistakes is priceless they say. But in this case costs around $1,000bln

LMFS wrote:

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

hmm true with India. India is not yet a real hi tech aersopace competitor of Russia. Unification with Su-57 makes more sense tho.
BTW you still believe in VSTOL cannot cope ith fighters on level of Su-57? only payload and range woul dbe smaller no other characteristics.  

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 [/quote]

can you provide better source? no ? then you just deny facts you dont like      

LMFS wrote:Su-57 would take off currently without problems from K,

without problems is simply technical tosh. This guy on voeynaya priomkasaid precisely: he thinks that with "defined weight" Su-57 should start. So no no full payload and fully fuel. Perhaps even not even close to so called normal starting weight.

perhaps you have better sources?

LMFS wrote: 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 you're again wrong  MiG-29k was killed too. Su-33K very deep redesign of Su-27 was chosen.  Yes heavy redesign and alost 2x as expensive. Yes, ff you make Yak without V engines would be lighter but why to do that ?! VSTOL has priceless  value to all navies so far. Especially that vSTOL fighters can cope with CATOBAR without problems.


Talking about universe ;-) Your universe has sporadic touch with real world. Itis enough to look at what is happening in Russian Chinese and all other navies except US one. All are goint VSTOL.

LMFS wrote:
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.

MiG-29k has characteristics at most at level of VSTOL yet needs 200m and skijump to start with full payload. Yak-141 was tested to do this 2-30 ns 60m . If you understand this is for navy priceless cool, if you dont Im fine with that too.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:hmm true with India. India is not yet a real hi tech aersopace competitor of Russia. Unification with Su-57 makes more sense tho.

Unification with Su-57 in terms of STOVL is a pipe dream IMHO. If it is in terms of XSTOL as you call it, well the Su-57 is already very good at that apparently. The biggest advantage of STOVL is clearly at landing, if the Su-57 version you propose could do that better than now by generating vertical lift, then it would be essentially a STOVL aircraft.

BTW you still believe in VSTOL cannot cope ith fighters on level of Su-57? only payload and range woul dbe smaller no other characteristics.  

See reasons above for Su-57. There are no heavy fighters in STOVL version that I know. And those are considered high-end assets specifically because of the range, payload, persistence and avionics they can carry.

can you provide better source? no ? then you just deny facts you dont like      

Do you know the say "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"? Besides I am admitting I may lack the knowledge to assess the T/W of that specific engine. So I am not denying, just pointing that these data are remarkable, and since they are not official I have to take them with caution. But main issue with your numbers is you forgot the weight of the rest of the installation

without problems is simply technical tosh.

Says who?
Main issue for T/O performance on a springboard is T/W ratio and aero design, which is not too apart for fighters due to requirements of supersonic flight among others. For the Su-57 the T/W will clearly surpass any of the current Russian naval fighters, and its T/O qualities have already been pointed out as outstanding, with naval role being confirmed as feasible by top technical guys of UAC and Sukhoi already twice. What is the factor that could compromise the T/O performance in your opinion?

This guy on voeynaya priomkasaid precisely: he thinks that with "defined weight" Su-57 should start. So no no full payload and fully fuel. Perhaps even not even close to so called normal starting weight.
perhaps  you have better sources?

Don't know. To me that is a typical way technical guys give a fast answer to such vague questions. He simply made sure he was not signing a blank cheque before making statements about the capacity of the jet, not confirming the serious TO restrictions you want to see. And besides we don't know if he was referring to current engines or newer ones, for which probably technical characteristics have not been confirmed 100% yet.

Think twice: if the current naval fighters can take-off so close to full weight from the short runs / 100% full load from the long ones and the Su-57 has so much better engines and aero, what are the reasons for such big concern?

Did you even bother using the simulation tool we provided? Would be good to make yourself an informed opinion about this matter, i.e., check the relevance of T/W ratio for the length of the T/O run.

and you're again wrong  MiG-29k was killed too. Su-33K very deep redesign of Su-27 was chosen.

I was referring to now. Two squadrons MiG-29K in service, zero Yaks. But that was not the point regardless.

Yes, ff you make Yak without V engines would be lighter

That is at least a starting point.

but why to do that ?!

Was just an exercise about a theoretical CTOL Yak being intrinsically superior to STOVL one, for obvious reasons.

VSTOL has priceless  value to all navies so far. Especially that vSTOL fighters can cope with CATOBAR without problems.

Says you. There are currently serious discussions in UK to buy the A version of the F-35 because they think they cannot cope with first order threats with the STOVL version only.

Talking about universe ;-) Your universe has sporadic touch with real world. Itis enough to look at what is happening in Russian Chinese and all other navies except US one. All are goint VSTOL.

And abandoning STOBAR / CATOBAR right? I think we will still see you changing your statements quite a bit before this is over.

MiG-29k has characteristics at most at level of VSTOL yet needs 200m and skijump to start with full payload.

You keep repeating the same about MiG-29 as if there was no other naval fighter in the world, while we are only interested in absence of the Su-57 and mainly because it is already paid for and in service in the RuN.

Yak-141 was tested to do this 2-30 ns 60m . If you understand this is for navy priceless cool, if you dont Im fine with that too.

You mean you will stop trying to evangelize us infidels? That would be great

And abandoning STOBAR / CATOBAR right?

Keeping those doesn't negate the utility of STOVL. The same with fixed wing planes vs. helicopters vs. tilt-rotors! Every 1 of them have their specific niche.

..the Su-57 and mainly because it is already paid for and in service in the RuN.

It's in the VKS, not RuN! Feasibility is not guaranteed just because they said so. Time will tell!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Keeping those doesn't negate the utility of STOVL. The same with fixed wing planes vs. helicopters vs. tilt-rotors! Every 1 of them have their specific niche.

Have never negated the utility of STOVL, on the contrary. Please allow me to summarize:
> STOVL make sense for assault ships but STOBAR or CATOBAR fighters have an intrinsic advantage for the higher-end capabilities required from full blown carriers
> Would like Russia developing STOVLs for their LHDs (in fact I am eager to see what they come up with) but simply don't see the economic case of developing a new plane for the amount and type of vessels Russia is supposed to be deploying (they wanted 4 Mistral for instance IIRC). They have said (confirmed today and hinted some time ago) that they will not do a pure helicopter carrier, so that may point out to the plan of equipping them with STOVL planes. That I don't see the economic case does not mean that I cannot be dead wrong and Russia sees the sense of the development, of course. Maybe they count on 4-6 sqd. for their assault ships + export + maybe 2 sqd. complement for their carriers and that is ok for them? Or maybe even better, they plan a shared development with China as you proposed. Together with recycling PAK-FA technology could yield a reasonable plane at reasonable prices that could be also competitive abroad. Few navies have STOBAR / CATOBAR, but every other nation wants to have some planes flying out of their LHDs, even if it brings nothing but prestige and a questionable "power projection" capability (preferably under the umbrella of some US CSG of course)
> What I would find very strange would be to abandon the great opportunity of developing the Su-57K. Carriers and LHD do not exclude each other, rather the contrary, the LHD benefits from the protection of the carrier to perform in its assault role. US, China and Russia all seem to follow a similar navy development model (excluding obvious scale differences), having both kinds of ships with their corresponding fighters and technologies. Haven't seen anything from them that points in a radically different direction to be honest...
> So I see them deploying STOVLs if other technologies do not step in and squeeze their role (like maybe the latest Kamov concept) and if the money is there. But I don't see the substitution of carriers and STOBAR planes long term by LHDs and STOVL. And I also don't see the hurry in substituting the Su-33 and MiG-29Ks, the later having been delivered in 2015-16.

It's in the VKS, not RuN! Feasibility is not guaranteed just because they said so. Time will tell!

Of course, nothing is done until its done and we'll have to wait many years now to see the outcome.

Regarding the MiG-29K, RuN indeed received 20 of them + 4 KUB dual seaters forming an air regiment of the Northern Fleet:
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12007494@egNews
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/august-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3042-russian-navy-to-form-second-aircraft-carrier-aviation-regiment-with-mig-29kkub.html

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:hmm true with India. India is not yet a real hi tech aersopace competitor of Russia. Unification with Su-57 makes more sense tho.

Unification with Su-57 in terms of STOVL is a pipe dream IMHO. If it is in terms of XSTOL as you call it, well the Su-57 is already very good at that apparently. The biggest advantage of STOVL is clearly at landing, if the Su-57 version you propose could do that better than now by generating vertical lift, then it would be essentially a STOVL aircraft.

indeed Su-57 is a very potent platform. Built to Russian war doctrine foreseeing importance of  maneuverability and STOL.  Built from scratch.  Thus I got gut feeling that new VSTOL will be to some degree unified with Su-57. At worst till level of engines, weapons, avionics. VSTOL has not only vertical start. Its rolling landing is great asset on sea.

BTW xSTOL is not  really my invention. Russians call byt xSTL machines that can start without vertical lift yet with very short takeoff strip.  Technically  it still would be STOL. Generation  ofextra lift could be with Coanda effect too. But I dotn think it ill go this way.  Well need to live and wait.

LMFS wrote:

BTW you still believe in VSTOL cannot cope ith fighters on level of Su-57? only payload and range woul dbe smaller no other characteristics.  

See reasons above for Su-57. There are no heavy fighters in STOVL version that I know. And those are considered high-end assets specifically because of the range, payload, persistence and avionics they can carry.

To counter long range strike aircraft  and defend your assets you need same long range and payload? not really, you need  enough AAMs and good radar + situational awareness. Avionics? what do you mean by avionics? that smaller fighter cannot carry radars? even it they are placed in all around fighter? Let me disagree with this thesis.

LMFS wrote:

can you provide better source? no ? then you just deny facts you dont like      

Besides I am admitting I may lack the knowledge to assess the T/W of that specific engine. So I am not denying, just pointing that these data are remarkable, and since they are not official I have to take them with caution. But main issue with your numbers is you forgot the weight of the rest of the installation

You're correct, Sir here. Nevertheless,please let me draw you attention to 2 details here:  Engines had 2x as high specific fuel consumption (comparing to regular engines) and nothing about MTBF.

LMFS wrote:Main issue for T/O performance on a springboard is T/W ratio and aero design, which is not too apart for fighters due to requirements of supersonic flight among others. For the Su-57 the T/W will clearly surpass any of the current Russian naval fighters, and its T/O qualities have already been pointed out as outstanding, with naval role being confirmed as feasible by top technical guys of UAC and Sukhoi already twice. What is the factor that could compromise the T/O performance in your opinion?

If aero design you call wing load then yes. It is also important since it affects landing speed. Su-57 has very low, below 400kg/m2.
Su-57 STOL (competition to class) characteristics are  great but takeoff in 300 meters with 50% of fuel with virtually no payload doenst make it  deck-ready fighter yet, Im afraid.
If you want to use  skijump-BAR this could work if Su-57 would be  navalized as some point of time. We'll live to see this.

So far navalization didnt improve any of Russian fighters performance though. Perhaps that is one of  reasons behind of building specialized deck fighter first? then eventually make its land version?

LMFS wrote: He simply made sure he was not signing a blank cheque before making statements about the capacity of the jet, not confirming the serious TO restrictions you want to see. And besides we don't know if he was referring to current engines or newer ones, for which probably technical characteristics have not been confirmed 100% yet.

of he knew but didnt want to go to jail for reveling secrets? like recently one of KNAAPO employees after talking too much on military forums...

LMFS wrote:

and you're again wrong  MiG-29k was killed too. Su-33K very deep redesign of Su-27 was chosen.

I was referring to now. Two squadrons MiG-29K in service, zero Yaks. But that was not the point regardless.

his is only part of story, let me tell yo remaining one: MiG-29k is in service only because of Indian tender. Russia started to acquire MiGs almost 20 years after its death.
Indians thought this could be a good deal since they had already lots of Soviet built MiG-29s. They didnt know what kidn of low quality makeover they are getting into.

Yaks weren't in Indian inventory. So no this had nothing to do with flight qualities.  But lessons learned. Now 23 MiGs will be retired and replaced by... yes you're correct Yak's VSTOL  successors.

LMFS wrote:

but why to do that ?!

Was just an exercise about a theoretical CTOL Yak being intrinsically superior to STOVL one, for obvious reasons.

Actually, trade off 5<x<15% of payload/range to get VSTOL is a great deal. If you check navies around the world.

LMFS wrote:

VSTOL has priceless  value to all navies so far. Especially that vSTOL fighters can cope with CATOBAR without problems.

Says you. There are currently serious discussions in UK to buy the A version of the F-35 because they think they cannot cope with first order threats with the STOVL version only.

You've omitted tiny detail here. This is not Royal Navy but RAF.  RAF and mulls buying F-35A not CATOBAR F-35C.   I wonder what "first order threats" do you mean? besides  £20m in price difference.   They have exactly the same avionics, just payload and range slightly differ. Then again Japan seems to interested seriously in F-35B.

LMFS wrote:

Talking about universe ;-) Your universe has sporadic touch with real world. Itis enough to look at what is happening in Russian Chinese and all other navies except US one. All are goint VSTOL.

And abandoning STOBAR / CATOBAR right? I think we will still see you changing your statements quite a bit before this is over.

Not what I have said.  China and US actually will use both CATOBAR and VSTOL. But their budgets are  (ro soon will be fo r China) by order of magnitude higher then Russia one. India we'll live to see. If their economy grows as rapidly as is doing now they can afford anything they want.


All remaining countries in the world need to find affordable solutions. BTW  Ski-jump will be used for VSTOL fighters because actually was invented for jump-jets.

LMFS wrote:
You mean you will stop trying to evangelize us infidels? That would be great

Infidels will see true power of VSTOL and numbers, I dont need to convince them myself

Former Commander-in-Chief of the Air and Space Forces of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev an interview about Su-57.

https://rg.ru/2018/10/16/istrebitel-su-57-na-ispytaniiah-prevzoshel-luchshie-amerikanskie-analogi.html

talking about future of MiG-35 and MiG-29k vs Vgen VSTOL.

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Keeping those doesn't negate the utility of STOVL. The same with fixed wing planes vs. helicopters vs. tilt-rotors! Every 1 of them have their specific niche.

Have never negated the utility of STOVL, on the contrary. Please allow me to summarize:
> STOVL make sense for assault ships but STOBAR or CATOBAR fighters have an intrinsic advantage for the higher-end capabilities required from full blown carriers

to defend own ships? hmmm Between F-35C and F-35B there is difference 300km in radius and 1,200kg in payload. What makes them disadvantageous on AA mission to defend own fleet?

LMFS wrote:> Would like Russia developing STOVLs for their LHDs (in fact I am eager to see what they come up with) but simply don't see the economic case of developing a new plane for the amount and type of vessels Russia is supposed to be deploying (they wanted 4 Mistral for instance IIRC). They have said (confirmed today and hinted some time ago) that they will not do a pure helicopter carrier, so that may point out to the plan of equipping them with STOVL planes. That I don't see the economic case does not mean that I cannot be dead wrong and Russia sees the sense of the development, of course. Maybe they count on 4-6 sqd. for their assault ships + export + maybe 2 sqd. complement for their carriers and that is ok for them? Or maybe even better, they plan a shared development with China as you proposed.

Why Russians should restrict to naval usage only? of course if India could buy Russian VSTOL could be great

I can see development in 2 potential aproaches:

1) large PAK FA based (say unified as much a possible) (V?)STOL fighter

2) light 1 engine fighter using as many components form Su-57 as possible.

LMFS wrote: Together with recycling PAK-FA technology could yield a reasonable plane at reasonable prices that could be also competitive abroad. Few navies have STOBAR / CATOBAR, but every other nation wants to have some planes flying out of their LHDs, even if it brings nothing but prestige and a questionable "power projection" capability (preferably under the umbrella of some US CSG of course)

Russia cannot afford for "fully blown CVN" so its power projection wont be long range naval strikes but missiles/Poseidon torpedoes. CATOBAR has only USA and France (with 100% US tech) and soon China (6xGDP of Russia) nobody else in the world. It is interesting how do you see "questionability" of power projection in case of light carriers? Besides numerical superiority of big ones.

LMFS wrote:]
> What I would find very strange would be to abandon the great opportunity of developing the Su-57K. Carriers and LHD do not exclude each other, rather the contrary, the LHD benefits from the protection of the carrier to perform in its assault role. US, China and Russia all seem to follow a similar navy development model (excluding obvious scale differences), having both kinds of ships with their corresponding fighters and technologies. Haven't seen anything from them that points in a radically different direction to be honest...

actually scale (and budget) is the key word here. Russia cannot build large CVNs and LHDs with current budget scale. Of course suddenly RuN gets shitload of cash why not?

LMFS wrote:> So I see them deploying STOVLs if other technologies do not step in and squeeze their role (like maybe the latest Kamov concept) and if the money is there. But I don't see the substitution of carriers and STOBAR planes long term by LHDs and STOVL. And I also don't see the hurry in substituting the Su-33 and MiG-29Ks, the later having been delivered in 2015-16.

There is no hurry in replacing MiG-29k it is still li\k e10 years horizon. If you checked this "expeditionary ship" press release - She is to be a modular ship that can also be a carrier. The thing you seem to omit is technology advancements. Tech didnt end in 80s.

Kamov? wow you mean somebody would replace good fighter with 400+ km/h helicopter? are you serious?

AWACS dosent need to be Yak-44 anymore. AEW drones can do same job. Long range strike? why not navalized Skats with standoff ammo?

LMFS wrote:

It's in the VKS, not RuN! Feasibility is not guaranteed just because they said so. Time will tell!

Of course, nothing is done until its done and we'll have to wait many years now to see the outcome
Regarding the MiG-29K, RuN indeed received 20 of them + 4 KUB dual seaters forming an air regiment of the Northern Fleet:

Technically there are 23 MiG-29ks . 4 were only deployed on Kuz during Syria campaign. One lost. One was no t serviceable.

Russia cannot build large CVNs and LHDs with current budget scale.

That's why TAKR/UDK is being offered in combination.
Designed ships will be with modular settings that transform to meet four different goals. “One of our design bureaus has prepared a draft of universal ships that can serve four different purposes,” said the President of the Russian Federation.
https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/sozdan_proekt_universalnyh_boevyh_korabley.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Those structures will be permanent or semi-permanent that will be interchangeable to fit different missions.  
I doubt the'll ever build a classic CVN with only defensive armaments.
MiG-35 update: https://rg.ru/2018/12/03/ispytaniia-istrebitelia-mig-35-dolzhny-zavershitsia-v-2019-godu.html

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Thus I got gut feeling that new VSTOL will be to some degree unified with Su-57. At worst till level of engines, weapons, avionics.

PAK-FA was important not only for the Su-57 but to put the whole industry up to date. So avionics, weapons, materials of course will be reused. If the plane is very small then the engine could used too, but expectations about payload and performance in strike role would need to be modest. It could make sense for deployments abroad: a small, cheap unpretending plane for AD and light strike as support of an expeditionary force. If the conflict is low risk, send it alone. If not, with a carrier to cover its operations. This simple configuration would probably see more use and could be carried in bigger numbers in the limited space of a LHD than a bigger plane.

As seen in Syria, intelligence can be more important than brute force. there are some good articles from Leonkov about how the new intelligence and command structures won the war for Russia in Syria by countering the upper hand Western intelligence support was giving to the jihadists. No need for 8 ton payload per plane in every sortie, but better a well placed CM in a war room full of undercover foreign officers...

VSTOL has not only vertical start. Its rolling landing is great asset on sea.

VSTOL I wouldn't know how to translate so not sure what you mean. Term is STOVL AFAIK.
Rolling landing is ok of course, but takes almost the same place as a catch, even when the carrier can be simpler and the airframes will suffer less. It is a less critical step due to much lower speed too. May be wrong, but for TO STOVL is not improving anything significant compared to modern jets IMO.

BTW xSTOL is not  really my invention. Russians call byt xSTL machines that can start without vertical lift yet with very short takeoff strip.  Technically  it still would be STOL.

Ok thanks

Generation  ofextra lift could be with Coanda effect too. But I dotn think it ill go this way.  Well need to live and wait.

Supersonic wings need low relative thickness. C-17 wing with a turbofan blowing the trailing edge slotted flaps for Coanda does not apply I'm afraid

To counter long range strike aircraft  and defend your assets you need same long range and payload? not really, you need  enough AAMs and good radar + situational awareness. Avionics? what do you mean by avionics? that smaller fighter cannot carry radars? even it they are placed in all around fighter? Let me disagree with this thesis.

Playing defensive and allowing the enemy the initiative, to schedule their attacks for optimum effect leads to defeat. Aggressor needs to be hit at home, be left no moment of peace, that is why heavy fighters are valuable. Operating a Su-33 in the K is like riding a motorbike in the corridor of your house, and yet Russians decided it was worth it.

Light fighter can be capable and effective and perfectly ok 80% of the time and still simply not enough against high-end threats where only your best heavy fighter would do. That is how he world works, I did not invent it...

Engines had 2x as high specific fuel consumption (comparing to regular engines) and nothing about MTBF.

Yeah, maybe. Single spool, maybe only good at low altitude and just a big banger for VTOL... as said could be a specialty designed for minimum footprint in a very narrow role.

If aero design you call wing load then yes. It is also important since it affects landing speed. Su-57 has very low, below 400kg/m2.

Not only, but it is a big factor. Lifting body of the Su-57 is huge and LEVCONS are there to use it with the best effectiveness even at high AoA. Relaxed stability counts too. Lift augmentation and TVC too. Many things need to be factored but I am not knowledgeable enough to evaluate all of them. In any case Su-57 has many tricks in the bag (was designed with low speed controllability and highest lift in mind) and technical guys confirmed it is an improvement of previous models, which is obvious nevertheless.

Su-57 STOL (competition to class) characteristics are  great but takeoff in 300 meters with 50% of fuel with virtually no payload doenst make it  deck-ready fighter yet, Im afraid.
If you want to use  skijump-BAR this could work if Su-57 would be  navalized as some point of time. We'll live to see this.

Not sure what level of modifications would be needed for the Su-57 to use a springboard. Overloads requirements in modern fighters are very severe (not any more 9 g for some seconds but rather for minutes), so structure is very robust already. And many hints of 6G and unmanned use were given, so I suspect the plane itself can substantially more than 9 g, that would be the wise approach if you want a plane capable for the next 40 years.

So far navalization didnt improve any of Russian fighters performance though. Perhaps that is one of  reasons behind of building specialized deck fighter first? then eventually make its land version?

Putting more weight and weakening the wing with a fold is hardly going to improve a plane. I suspect (or maybe wish) the Su-57 was thought with this in mind from the beginning. Robust landing gear with the right layout already in place, as high lift, high overload capability and many control surfaces. MiG-35 apparently has a structure valid for carrier operations from the onset. Maybe new materials allow for this with little overweight, with the added benefit for CTOL versions of longer service life of the airframe. Better engines with higher T/W are also going to help both CTOL an naval variants. In general if you plan from the beginning with the different requirements in mind you can find the synergies. If not, you have to go a difficult path of suboptimal modifications. Would expect the Russians to have learned this lesson with the Su-33 and MiG-29K.

of he knew but didnt want to go to jail for reveling secrets? like recently one of KNAAPO employees after talking too much on military forums...

Ouch!  

his is only part of story, let me tell yo remaining one: MiG-29k is in service only because of Indian tender.

Of course. It was a perfectly rational decision to use the line already set up for the Indian contract, rather than restarting the Su-33 for a handful of planes.

Russia started to acquire MiGs almost 20 years after its death.

This is not really true, MiG-29K is a version based in the M. It is a very modern fighter, with every system in the plane having been deeply updated, multirole capable. Structure was updated too. MiG didn't had much to do in all these years to neglect their only fighter with commercial chances so they did put quite a bit of effort in it.

Aero of 4G planes is very good, almost up to date and in some aspects even better because no compromises for stealth were needed. With modern engines, optimized structure and digital electronic filling it is quite capable and besides cheap. An AESA is being prepared for it too.

Indians thought this could be a good deal since they had already lots of Soviet built MiG-29s. They didnt know what kidn of low quality makeover they are getting into.

Too much lobbying and BS being spread around Indian military to be sure what is true and what is not. The stench of propaganda efforts is all over this issue and besides all these claims can be conveniently used to hide own incompetency. Russians are using the fighters and they seem to be happy with them. Let's not forget how mad US is about preventing Russian military sales

Yaks weren't in Indian inventory. So no this had nothing to do with flight qualities.  But lessons learned. Now 23 MiGs will be retired and replaced by... yes you're correct Yak's VSTOL  successors.

Will be retired yes, but when? They were delivered between 2010 and 2016 if I am not wrong. But in any case STOVL are for the LHDs where the MiGs cannot operate

Actually, trade off 5

How do you get to those numbers? How much fuel lost due to internal space used by vertical lift?

You've omitted tiny detail here. This is not Royal Navy but RAF.  RAF and mulls buying F-35A not CATOBAR F-35C.  

Yes, RAF was planed to use the Bs and they want the As instead. And they want it enough as to risk a spat with US for increasing the price of the Bs for the rest of buyers, including the USMC, which are not specially happy about the big extra cost of the STOVL version.

I wonder what "first order threats" do you mean? besides  £20m in price difference.

I put the cost estimations for the different versions in another post. But also performance differences are mentioned:

https://twitter.com/gregbagwell/status/1068625084510818306

They have exactly the same avionics, just payload and range slightly differ. Then again Japan seems to interested seriously in F-35B.

Japan wants to turn small helicopter carriers into STOVL, F-35B makes sense. RAF wants to be as capable as possible and Bs don't seem to help there.

Not what I have said.  China and US actually will use both CATOBAR and VSTOL. But their budgets are  (ro soon will be fo r China) by order of magnitude higher then Russia one. India we'll live to see. If their economy grows as rapidly as is doing now they can afford anything they want.

Putin is at least as much behind the naval strategy as after the STOVL decision. And they decided to create carriers, get over it.

All remaining countries in the world need to find affordable solutions.

Yes and that is one of the strongest arguments for hoping the STOVL could end up being something.

.. for TO STOVL is not improving anything significant compared to modern jets IMO.

Future STOVLs may be closer to CTOLs in performance, but the whole point is that it doesn't need CATOBAR equipment, space, personnel, & costs. And they can operate from improvised ships/barges, highways & short/damaged airstrips.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

.. for TO STOVL is not improving anything significant compared to modern jets IMO.

Future STOVLs may be closer to CTOLs in performance, but the whole point is that it doesn't need CATOBAR equipment, space, personnel, & costs. And they can operate from improvised ships/barges, highways & short/damages airstrips.  

Ok should have been more precise. Was referring to STOBAR fighters, that can already take off from very short distances and without any active support other than blast deflectors. And their TO performance is only improving as the engines get better and better.

Regarding the capacity of STOVL to operate from "improvised" TO and landing pads, it is not that good when looked in detail. I have seen a Harrier blasting the concrete slabs of a runway live and almost having to cancel its participation in an airshow because of this, you can damage the plane, ingest debris or even hurt someone. 20 t blast effects are not harmless. And then regarding the military value of using improvised and scattered operational bases. This is ok, but how many planes can be operated like that in a conflict, especially in the sea? It is fine in an emergency to save one plane by landing on a container ship, but when you are talking about squadrons having to flee a sinking carrier you will have big problems to find enough lading spots.

They could taxi or be towed to the roads & use rolling STOLs.
STOVL fighters at sea won't be too far from divert airfields &/ other ships equipped with hardened heat resistant decks. If they must ditch, it's war! Even AF pilots train in water survival.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Russia cannot build large CVNs and LHDs with current budget scale.

That's why TAKR/UDK is being offered in combination.

Frankly speaking, none of countries besides USA and China can afford to build a fleet of big CVNs. OK in 10-15 years India has big chance to enter this club as 3 or then second worlds economy.

Returning to Russia: Will it be a TAKR or just a modular ship? we'll need to see. TAKR though is the most logical asymmetric option. Paying the price less payload you need not only less escort but can create "an AAD/ASW/ASh umbrella " on your own ship grouping.

Tsavo wrote: Those structures will be permanent or semi-permanent that will be interchangeable to fit different missions.  

well this sentence was not actually in Rakhmanov statement but seems to be logical.

Tsavo wrote: I doubt the'll ever build a classic CVN with only defensive armaments.

Well this would be logical, if your airwing is not your main strike force. Nuclear propulsion would to be a logical too in scarcity of bases and to put less strain on supply chain.

LMFS wrote:
Ok should have been more precise. Was referring to STOBAR fighters, that can already take off from very short distances and without any active support other than blast deflectors. And their TO performance is only improving as the engines get better and better.

STOBAR intrinsically cannot get even close to VSTOL in terms of short take off neither landing. Just one of examples at MiG-29k - 195m + skijump vs 60m without skijump for Yak-141 this is 300% longer take off. Landing - MiG cannot land without BAR part. One was lost due to failure of it. Any VSTOL can actually land vertically or with rolling landing.



BTW STOBAR use still blast deflectors. Su-33 even burned some at the beginning of its career on TAKR Tbilisi (later renamed to ... KUZ) . Below Su-33 on Kuz.

LMFS wrote: Regarding the capacity of STOVL to operate from "improvised" TO and landing pads, it is not that good when looked in detail. I have seen a Harrier blasting the concrete slabs of a runway live and almost having to cancel its participation in an airshow because of this, you can damage the plane, ingest debris or even hurt someone. 20 t blast effects are not harmless. And then regarding the military value of using improvised and scattered operational bases. This is ok, but how many planes can be operated like that in a conflict, especially in the sea? It is fine in an emergency to save one plane by landing on a container ship, but when you are talking about squadrons having to flee a sinking carrier you will have big problems to find enough lading spots.

not really, I have seen many vertical landings of both Harriers and F-35 on regular runways. Nothing happened.




Having heat resistant layer on landing points is nto a problem anymore. In case of Russian Navy it can be specific coatings of course on CV but in case its foreseen to use normal helipads (what is not the case imho) special extra hear resistant covers can be used.

Soviets for their VSTOL tried to use trucks with heat resistant mattes following troops so you can deploy "portable airfield" anywhere. Cumbersome? perhaps but how quick can you build 1 km concrete runway close to front line?

well this sentence was not actually in Rakhmanov statement but seems to be logical.

That's my understanding of what he said; it will give flexibility to the fleet commanders to configure them to changing missions.
The USN used its CV/Ns as helo carriers a few times:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-two-super-carriers-became-floating-army-h-1647968681

In October 2001, Kitty Hawk deployed to the North Arabian Sea for the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. The ship served as an afloat forward staging base for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment,[15] with a reduced air wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV-63)#1998_to_2008_(Forward_Deployed:_Yokosuka,_Japan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#/media/File:RH-53SeaStallionIranOperation.jpg

The Navy’s amphibious assault ships of the future will be expected to perform amphibious assault, fleet air defense, ground support, and anti-submarine missions.  They just won’t perform them as effectively (with the exception of amphibious assault) as a supercarrier.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/06/09/why_are_we_so_afraid_of_small_carriers_107265.html

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Thus I got gut feeling that new VSTOL will be to some degree unified with Su-57. At worst till level of engines, weapons, avionics.

PAK-FA was important not only for the Su-57 but to put the whole industry up to date. So avionics, weapons, materials of course will be reused. If the plane is very small then the engine could used too, but expectations about payload and performance in strike role would need to be modest. It could make sense for deployments abroad: a small, cheap unpretending plane for AD and light strike as support of an expeditionary force. If the conflict is low risk, send it alone. If not, with a carrier to cover its operations. This simple configuration would probably see more use and could be carried in bigger numbers in the limited space of a LHD than a bigger plane.

Very true, of course depending what is a modest payload. MiG-29k has 4,500kg payload, MiG-35 has 6,000kg. This is less than actual F-35B. Al-41 izd 30. is 18,000 kgf engine. It should do for J-39 Gripen sized plane. J-39s MTOW is 14,000kg, add 15% for stealth.


From the other hand how heavy is AA missions' payload? 3-4 tons max. BTW Im not sure what do you mean by carrier to cover? VSTOL one will be the only carrier fighter and ships it is going to be based on likely only carriers in navy.

LMFS wrote:As seen in Syria, intelligence can be more important than brute force. there are some good articles{} No need for 8 ton payload per plane in every sortie, but better a well placed CM in a war room full of undercover foreign officers...

Glad we can agree

LMFS wrote:

VSTOL has not only vertical start. Its rolling landing is great asset on sea.

VSTOL I wouldn't know how to translate so not sure what you mean. Term is STOVL AFAIK.
Rolling landing is ok of course, but takes almost the same place as a catch, even when the carrier can be simpler and the airframes will suffer less. It is a less critical step due to much lower speed too. May be wrong, but for TO STOVL is not improving anything significant compared to modern jets IMO.

1) VSTOL is easier to write for me but now such fighters are called STOVL (at least F-35 is). Technically they can do both vertically.

2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL. Start here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length. Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck. This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.

3) landing is by no means less critical step, unless you send fighters one way only

LMFS wrote:

Generation  ofextra lift could be with Coanda effect too. But I dotn think it ill go this way.  Well need to live and wait.

Supersonic wings need low relative thickness. C-17 wing with a turbofan blowing the trailing edge slotted flaps for Coanda does not apply I'm afraid

I disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed.

As per STOL not C-17 but An-72 was real STOL among transports - 350m takeoff vs. 910m C-17.

LMFS wrote:Playing defensive and allowing the enemy the initiative, to schedule their attacks for optimum effect leads to defeat. Aggressor needs to be hit at home, be left no moment of peace, that is why heavy fighters are valuable. Operating a Su-33 in the K is like riding a motorbike in the corridor of your house, and yet Russians decided it was worth it.

Light fighter can be capable and effective and perfectly ok 80% of the time and still simply not enough against high-end threats where only your best heavy fighter would do. That is how he world works, I did not invent it...

1) True, but please note that so far none of heavy fighters is based on USN/RN/Indian nor French Navy. In Chine they want to replace Su-27 knock off with indigenous copy of F-35 AFAIK.

2) I dont know what are Russian assumptions and requirements for the role of deck fighter. It is easier to carry smaller fighters in higher numbers, especially if they go in drone mode.


3) If long range raids will be required then Su-33 will be replaced by... Su-57 is V/STOL edition. I men something closely related to Su-57.

LMFS wrote:

Engines had 2x as high specific fuel consumption (comparing to regular engines) and nothing about MTBF.

Yeah, maybe. Single spool, maybe only good at low altitude and just a big banger for VTOL... as said could be a specialty designed for minimum footprint in a very narrow role.

BTW currently electrical engines (source FPI.gov.ru ) can reach up to 12kW/kg . 700kg engine can reach 8400kW of lift power without extra temp ;-)

LMFS wrote:

Su-57 STOL (competition to class) characteristics are  great but takeoff in 300 meters with 50% of fuel with virtually no payload doenst make it  deck-ready fighter yet, Im afraid. If you want to use  skijump-BAR this could work if Su-57 would be  navalized as some point of time. We'll live to see this.

Not sure what level of modifications would be needed for the Su-57 to use a springboard. Overloads requirements in modern fighters are very severe (not any more 9 g for some seconds but rather for minutes), so structure is very robust already. And many hints of 6G and unmanned use were given, so I suspect the plane itself can substantially more than 9 g, that would be the wise approach if you want a plane capable for the next 40 years.

or 50 years ;-) Well hard to disagree. Anyway I cannot imagine pilot fighting with constant 9g without at best being knocked out. Then again perhaps Su-57 will be basis for VSTOL?
Only size is against all other parameters can be for. Let's see.

LMFS wrote:

Russia started to acquire MiGs almost 20 years after its death.

This is not really true, MiG-29K is a version based in the M. It is a very modern fighter, with every system in the plane having been deeply updated, multirole capable. Structure was updated too. MiG didn't had much to do in all these years to neglect their only fighter with commercial chances so they did put quite a bit of effort in it.

Aero of 4G planes is very good, almost up to date and in some aspects even better because no compromises for stealth were needed. With modern engines, optimized structure and digital electronic filling it is quite capable and besides cheap. An AESA is being prepared for it too.

1) if has no AESA and unlikely will have installed one. MiG-35 is prepared too AFAIK.

2) it still after 25 years form first flight has pathetic serviceability (Indian audit chamber source)

3) last but not least: gen. Bondaryev interview quote I have posted recently: 4 or 4++ fighters are obsolete already. Gen Bondaryev was till recently Chief of RuAF, now promoted to SovFed.

LMFS wrote:

Indians thought this could be a good deal since they had already lots of Soviet built MiG-29s. They didnt know what kidn of low quality makeover they are getting into.

Too much lobbying and BS being spread around Indian military to be sure what is true and what is not. The stench of propaganda efforts is all over this issue and besides all these claims can be conveniently used to hide own incompetency. Russians are using the fighters and they seem to be happy with them. Let's not forget how mad US is about preventing Russian military sales

Are you saying that Indian government's audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?

LMFS wrote:

Yaks weren't in Indian inventory. So no this had nothing to do with flight qualities.  But lessons learned. Now 23 MiGs will be retired and replaced by... yes you're correct Yak's VSTOL  successors.

Will be retired yes, but when? They were delivered between 2010 and 2016 if I am not wrong. But in any case STOVL are for the LHDs where the MiGs cannot operate

this is hard question mathematically retirement = f(geopolitical situation, money supply, progress of programme). LHDs and VSTOL is only your opinion. You are fully entitled to.
It doesnt mean tho it is the fact of life.

LMFS wrote:

Actually, trade off 5<x<15% of payload/range to get VSTOL is a great deal. If you check navies around the world.

How do you get to those numbers? How much fuel lost due to internal space used by vertical lift?

I really dot understand how does it matter how much space is taken by lift engines or ventilator as long as fighter has required radius? so you make it bigger. Su-33 has 50%+ range of MiG-29k and lower landing speed.


numbers on internal fuel wiki says:

fuel: MiG-29k - 4,750kg fuel......Yak-141 4,400kg fuel ( 7%?)
range MiG-29k . 2000km.......,,,,,,Yak-2100km (both with extra tank, in cae of yak 1 tank)


........F-35B......6,000............F-35C.8,900 kg.........(50% but this is not build according to Russian doctrine)

weight empty: F-35B 14,729 kg F-35C 15,686 kg (actually CATOBAR is 10% heavier)

LMFS wrote:

You've omitted tiny detail here. This is not Royal Navy but RAF.  RAF and mulls buying F-35A not CATOBAR F-35C.  

Yes, RAF was planed to use the Bs and they want the As instead. And they want it enough as to risk a spat with US for increasing the price of the Bs for the rest of buyers, including the USMC, which are not specially happy about the big extra cost of the STOVL version.

USMC wants to have cheaper fighters same as everybody does. There will be no spats with US even if RAF gets wht it wants. We are talking about Navies here not AFs? it is like RAF was buying F-18.

LMFS wrote:

They have exactly the same avionics, just payload and range slightly differ. Then again Japan seems to interested seriously in F-35B.

Japan wants to turn small helicopter carriers into STOVL, F-35B makes sense. RAF wants to be as capable as possible and Bs don't seem to help there.

if F-35B is so bad why only Su-57 from Russian inventory is better? and Su-57 with ROAFR has only great chances of success against. I'm afraid F-35B is capable fighter in its class.

LMFS wrote:

Not what I have said.  China and US actually will use both CATOBAR and VSTOL. But their budgets are  (ro soon will be fo r China) by order of magnitude higher then Russia one. India we'll live to see. If their economy grows as rapidly as is doing now they can afford anything they want.

Putin is at least as much behind the naval strategy as after the STOVL decision. And they decided to create carriers, get over it.

Well, Rakhmanov has just spoken about such aircraft carriers. 4 in 1. Putin didnt say anything about displacement nor catapults in strategy AFAIK.

LMFS wrote:

All remaining countries in the world need to find affordable solutions.

Yes and that is one of the strongest arguments for hoping the STOVL could end up being something.

VSTOL is already something. F-35B is better then any of MiG-29k now and in the future VSTOL roles will only grow (Russia + China will enter this niche too)

BTW STOBAR use still blast deflectors. Su-33 even burned some at the beginning of its career on TAKR Tbilisi (later renamed to ... KUZ) . Below Su-33 on Kuz.

Those barriers are water cooled.

not really, I have seen many vertical landings of both Harriers and F-35 on regular runways. Nothing happened.

The Yak-41 damaged the runway and Farnborough... the harrier doesn't have afterburner... that is why the Americans had to buy the technology for a vectored thrust engine nozzle for an AB engine... the Brits didn't have the technology.

1) VSTOL is easier to write for me but now such fighters are called STOVL (at least F-35 is). Technically they can do both vertically.

Everybody called them Vertical/Short Take of and landing aircraft... but real world experience that I realise you are so keen to ignore because it does not suit your beliefs led to them changing the description to Short TakeOff and Vertical Landing... because operationally they never take off vertically... it is a circus act trick... there are no benefits from taking off vertically, and lots of problems it creates, like reduced fuel, reduced payload.

2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL. Start here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length. Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck. This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.

To allow a rolling take off from a STOVL aircraft the surface of the entire deck needs to be able to take full AB thrust from a 20 ton thrust engine. With CATOBAR the raised deck deflector protects crew and items on the deck from jetwash and is water cooled.

3) landing is by no means less critical step, unless you send fighters one way only

Strike missions will be one way with ship and sub launched cruise missiles.

I disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed.

As per STOL not C-17 but An-72 was real STOL among transports - 350m takeoff vs. 910m C-17.

There is a reason that the "new" An-72s have their engines in conventional underwing pods... because putting the engines above the wing did enhance lift during landings and takeoffs, but it makes the engines a bitch to work on for maintenance.

3) If long range raids will be required then Su-33 will be replaced by... Su-57 is V/STOL edition. I men something closely related to Su-57.

Sure... make a V/STOL Su-57... its easy... hell why piss around with an Su-57.... they are putting Blackjacks back into production... why not a V/STOL Tu-160... it could be used as a heavy interceptor or a deep strike plane... dick.

2) it still after 25 years form first flight has pathetic serviceability (Indian audit chamber source)

Same org that rejected the AKM as a replacement for the SLR in the 1980s?

Yeah, they know what they are talking about...

3) last but not least: gen. Bondaryev interview quote I have posted recently: 4 or 4++ fighters are obsolete already. Gen Bondaryev was till recently Chief of RuAF, now promoted to SovFed.

Which puts the biggest nail in the coffin of your idea for a STOVL aircraft... CTOBAR Su-57 is has to be... they can't afford to develop two 5th gen fighters...

Or should I say they shouldn't.

Are you saying that Indian government's audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?

If they are going to have them it makes sense to keep them upgraded... or are you saying Armata and T-90 are shit because they still upgrade T-72s.

fuel: MiG-29k - 4,750kg fuel......Yak-141 4,400kg fuel ( 7%?)
range MiG-29k . 2000km.......,,,,,,Yak-2100km (both with extra tank, in cae of yak 1 tank)

Lets see information on tests where either plane every actually carried that amount of fuel and flew that distance...

weight empty: F-35B 14,729 kg F-35C 15,686 kg (actually CATOBAR is 10% heavier)

But what are the performance statistics for CATOBAR and STOVL models... why don't you show those?

(I suspect the CATOBAR model is heavier because the STOVL model is about to crash and the pilot has already ejected...)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Very true, of course depending what is a modest payload. MiG-29k  has 4,500kg payload,  MiG-35 has 6,000kg.  This is less than actual F-35B.

You stick to your fetish comparisons which do not make much sense actually. F-35 is a bomb truck so it has good payload and fuel capacity, but B version much less than A and C ones. Mig-29 is way lighter, has a main AD role with added strike capability not the other way around as the F-35. Accordingly, it has way better dynamical parameters than the F-35, you should compare those too and not only payload which obviously benefits the bomb truck.

Al-41 izd 30. is 18,000 kgf engine. It  should do for   J-39 Gripen sized plane. J-39s MTOW is 14,000kg, add 15% for stealth.

Izd. 30 is no AL-41, is a clean sheet design but I understand, it would be thrust enough for a plane between JAS-39 and maybe F-16 considering extra weight of weapons bays, avionics, LO and vertical lift HW. Remind nevertheless that JAS-39 has an engine in the class of the F-404 or RD-93, not of the AL-41. You cannot put a huge engine in a tiny plane, as you can imagine those need to be in proportion.

BTW Im not sure what do you mean by  carrier to cover? VSTOL one will be the only carrier fighter and ships it is going to be based on likely  only carriers in navy.

Naval strategy begs to differ, but we can all have our own opinions and clashes with reality at will.

1) VSTOL is easier to write for me but now such fighters are called STOVL (at least F-35 is). Technically they can do both vertically.

 
Then it would be V/STOL. In reality they almost never take off vertically, it makes no sense.

2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL.

F-35B needs 200 m for TO at full load, more than the MiG-29K on the K despite a generational gap in engine technology... and that considering the TO weight from the short runs is very close to MTOW. Now take 5G engines and you have TO full load from less than 100 m. But Yak managed to take off with two missiles in 60 m, congratulations.

Start here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length.

QE is 300 m long. America class is 260 m long IIRC. Kirovs were what, some 300 m? Where are the space savings? All those vessels could have a 100 TO run at the bow for STOBAR planes

Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck.

Didn't you say springboard was invented for STOVL? QE keeps it operating F-35B, as did Soviet ships. Where are the savings for TO?

This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to  pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.

In the humble opinions of USN, PLAAN, French navy and RuN it is better to have CATOBAR or STOBAR planes. But they have not been lucky enough to be taught by you I guess.

I disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed.

Show me an example of this applied to a supersonic plane and we can discuss

BTW currently electrical engines (source FPI.gov.ru ) can reach up to 12kW/kg  .  700kg engine can reach 8400kW of lift power without extra temp ;-)

I know power density of current and superconductor-based motors. The small problem is where the energy comes from, have you though about that? Do you know how much a generator or 8 MW weights my friend? And the cabling and power conditioning?

or 50 years ;-) Well hard to disagree.  Anyway I cannot imagine pilot fighting with constant 9g without at best being knocked out.

Bogdan specifically addressed this issue. 5G is extremely hard on the pilot, both physically and mentally due to reduced reaction times and overloads. Even better aero than 4G with new engines allow for more sustained manoeuvring, so these extreme piloting conditions are way longer than before. To the point that they already think in unmanned Su-57

Then again perhaps Su-57 will be basis for VSTOL?
Only size is against all other parameters can be for. Let's see.

Based on what? How do you lift the plane?

Are you saying that  Indian government's  audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?

Do you work for NATO or what? Serviceability of a plane without spares is zero, and the operator can be the only guilty party in that. Russia bought two sqd. and is using them normally, stop the nonsense.

I really dot understand how does it matter how much space is taken by lift engines or ventilator as long as fighter has required radius?

Then you can't understand anything about aircraft, sorry.

Could not care commenting again more funny numbers an comparisons already debunked 50 times.

USMC wants to have cheaper fighters same as everybody does. There will be no spats with US even if RAF gets wht it wants. We are talking about Navies here not AFs? it is like RAF was buying F-18.

Please read about the issue to understand it better.

if F-35B is so bad why only Su-57 from Russian inventory is better? and Su-57 with ROAFR has only great chances of success against. I'm afraid F-35B is capable fighter in its class.

With that amount of technical arguments you must be right for sure  

Well, Rakhmanov has just spoken about such aircraft carriers. 4 in 1. Putin didnt say anything about displacement nor catapults in strategy AFAIK.

Putin didn't even bother speaking about STOVL that I know, so they don't exist then
If you remember there were discussions about LHDs and carriers. They are both in the naval strategy, and have been discussed separately, including statements about Priboy, Lavina and then opting for multifunctional vessels. Maybe all carriers and LHDs have been joined now? Maybe, but last news is that RuN will take a decision regarding their carriers in 2019 after review of the design proposals. To me this last news looks fully compatible with LHDs/LHAs with more or less amphibious or air wing weight like America class. Which makes full sense by the way.

they are putting Blackjacks back into production... why not a V/STOL Tu-160... it could be used as a heavy interceptor or a deep strike plane..

How many of them would fit on a CVN?
Better to build giant floating bases as I mentioned before.

GarryB wrote:

3) If long range raids will be required then Su-33 will be replaced by... Su-57 is V/STOL edition. I men something closely related to Su-57.

Sure... make a V/STOL Su-57... its easy... hell why piss around with an Su-57.... they are putting Blackjacks back into production... why not a V/STOL Tu-160... it could be used as a heavy interceptor or a deep strike plane... dick.

GarryB wrote:

BTW STOBAR use still blast deflectors. Su-33 even burned some at the beginning of its career on TAKR Tbilisi (later renamed to ... KUZ) . Below Su-33 on Kuz.

Those barriers are water cooled.

so what? they have limits in heat exchange. (wiki)

Су-33 был установлен на первую взлётную позицию с дистанцией разбега 105 м[14], но сразу же была обнаружена проблема — газоотражающий щит устанавливался на угол 60°, что вызывало отражение раскалённых газов в сторону близко стоящего самолёта и могло повредить его конструкцию[14]. Угол наклона щитов был сразу же изменён до 45°[14], но при попытке взлёта не сработали стартовые задержники[14], в результате чего самолёт в режиме полного форсажа простоял на палубе корабля лишних 10 секунд и прожёг арматуру поднятого газоотбойного щита[14].

but when attempting to take-off, the launch delayers did not work [14]As a result, the aircraft in the full afterburner mode stood for an extra 10 seconds on the deck of the ship and burned through the armature of the raised gas shield [14]

so actually burned through cooling pipes.

GB wrote:  

not really, I have seen many vertical landings of both Harriers and F-35 on regular runways. Nothing happened.

The Yak-41 damaged the runway and Farnborough... the harrier doesn't have afterburner... that is why the Americans had to buy the technology for a vectored thrust engine nozzle for an AB engine... the Brits didn't have the technology.

Yak didn damage anything in reality. So where is this vid? Harrier didn have AB becsue was subsonic. Yak had 1,800km/h max speed wih 152kN thrust  (vs. 2100km/h MiG-29K with 180kN)

a) RD-41 didn have afterburner. Only  R79V-300 did.  fSo again where is this runway damage?



b) Here you have F-35 (has afterburner)  vertical landing, where is this damaged runway?!

GB wrote:

1) VSTOL is easier to write for me but now such fighters are called STOVL (at least F-35 is). Technically they can do both vertically.

Everybody called them Vertical/Short Take of and landing aircraft... but real world experience that I realise you are so keen to ignore because it does not suit your beliefs led to them changing the description to Short TakeOff and Vertical Landing... because operationally they never take off vertically... it is a circus act trick... there are no benefits from taking off vertically, and lots of problems it creates, like reduced fuel, reduced payload.

yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.

GB wrote:

2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL. Start here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length. Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck. This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.

To allow a rolling take off from a STOVL aircraft the surface of the entire deck needs to be able to take full AB thrust from a 20 ton thrust engine. With CATOBAR the raised deck deflector protects crew and items on the deck from jetwash and is water cooled.

as I told you before, CATOBAR are intrinsically unable to compete with STOL neither in takeoff nor landing.  You have 300%-1000% takeoff advantage  comparing to CATOBAR   and almost 200% advantage with landing.

MiG-29k with arresters landing 150-90m

F-35

F-35B’s first real SRVL touching down at about 40 knots and decelerating to a standstill in about 175 feet.

GB wrote:

I disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed..

There is a reason that the "new" An-72s have their engines in conventional underwing pods... because putting the engines above the wing did enhance lift during landings and takeoffs, but it makes the engines a bitch to work on for maintenance.

That's why now they are going to distributed propulsion.  Technology advances... the small wings one is STOL

GB wrote:

3) If long range raids will be required then Su-33 will be replaced by... Su-57 is V/STOL edition. I men something closely related to Su-57.

Sure... make a V/STOL Su-57... its easy... hell why piss around with an Su-57.... t

1) long range strikes is LMFS idea, I was just responding

2) Su-57? Su-57 is of course just one of ideas, with relative small probability to materialize, idea if Russians want to unify platforms and build heavy deck fighter.
IMHO better is to invest in light fighter since more can be carried by ship and thus can better defend ship grouping.

GB wrote:

2) it still after 25 years form first flight has pathetic serviceability (Indian audit chamber source)

Yeah, they know what they are talking about...

Russians have same problems with MiGs on deck. Why only 4 were on Kuz during Syrian campaign? MiG-29k is nothing else but fail experiment
Good for Russian navy it is closed now and forever      

GB wrote:

3) last but not least: gen. Bondaryev interview quote I have posted recently: 4 or 4++ fighters are obsolete already. Gen Bondaryev was till recently Chief of RuAF, now promoted to SovFed.

Which puts the biggest nail in the coffin of your idea for a STOVL aircraft... CTOBAR Su-57 is has to be... they can't afford to develop two 5th gen fighters...

No, it puts biggest nail to Mi"G-29k , now confirmed actually they can develop 2 if they want. Infact they already did it.
One CVN less one new fighter more. Not to mention wasting money on useless YAK-44 or EMALS too.

BTW Su-57 can be ... as xSTOL true.

GB wrote:

Are you saying that Indian government's audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?

If they are going to have them it makes sense to keep them upgraded... or are you saying Armata and T-90 are shit because they still upgrade T-72s.

1) Your trying to manipulate here, why? Arnata is perspective tank same as VSTOL fighter or  Su-57.  And yes Armata will be procured when west starts to improve their tanks or service lfie T-72s will come to an end.  

2) Su-33 check definition of service life, MiG-29k perhaps  even will be upgraded. Though  still 10-12 years ahead. If MiGs by accident  will be serviceable of course.

3) Armate is perspective tank and T-72 adequate.

GB wrote:

fuel: MiG-29k - 4,750kg fuel......Yak-141 4,400kg fuel ( 7%?)
range MiG-29k . 2000km.......,,,,,,Yak-2100km (both with extra tank, in cae of yak 1 tank)

Lets see information on tests where either plane every actually carried that amount of fuel and flew that distance...

here you are after wiki) , happy? because I am      

MiG-29k

Ferry range:
With 3 drop tanks: 3,000 km (1,860 mi; 1,620 nmi)

Yak-141 - where Yak can have only 1 drop tank 1,750kg

Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)


     

GB wrote:

weight empty: F-35B 14,729 kg F-35C 15,686 kg (actually CATOBAR is 10% heavier)

But what are the performance statistics for CATOBAR and STOVL models... why don't you show those?

like payload?  VSTOL 6,800kg vs CATOBAR 8,000kg?