Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

I am sure you have the quote?

If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too.

America class is a carrier too.

Why are you ignoring this message then? selective hearing I suspect.

Not ignoring, have already explained to you what sense it makes for me.

MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...

So, I finally did the simulation since you are so lazy. Taking 22400 kg MTOW acc. to Rosoboronexport, considering 4500 kg max load. So TOW with 2400 kg payload like the F-35 would be 20300 kg. Thrust is 2x9000 kgf.
The plane could take off from the ramp of the Vikramaditya in <95 m. So it is in fact quite shorter than the 450 feet of the F-35B in the QE. To be considered though:
- I don't have the aero parameters of the MiG-29K and I am using those of the F-18 instead.
- Simulation considers 30 kt wind over deck, you can play around to check effects of higher and lower wind speed

http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

BTW see F-35B requirements

Yak 60m - MiG-195m

Yak was cancelled and had a serious accident due to hot air ingestion. After checking the design, Lockheed went for the lifting fan design instead of direct lift. You prefer to ignore this, for me these are reasons to suspect the design may have issues. I stick to serially produced fighters.

F-35-90m MiG-195m

Nope, see above.

Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.

Have seen no link sorry. Checked the videos again and it is true they stop very fast and more importantly with little impact. Deck was empty, would be good to see the real operating conditions at sea, since it is not clear to me if landing and TO can take place in parallel (TO run very long) and how many fighters can be parked at the deck during these operations.

BTW me a drama queen ?      

About MiG-29K? Totally!  

Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...
Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.

Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to:
Breakthrough announced in South China Morning Post by China in developing its own Improved EMALS technology which was done by use of advanced insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips. This sudden development of in house EMALS technology by China was only made possible due to acquisition of semiconductor companies-WeEn, Ampleon and Nexperia, which were acquired via sale of Freescale Semiconductors (NXP)'s Bipolar Power Division, RF Power division and Standards Products Division respectively and also by acquisition of some other European semiconductor companies.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19455&page=0

GarryB wrote:

Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.

A small carrier would need EMALS more than a bigger ship...

no you dont need catapults at all, thisis only your vision. Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt.

GB wrote:

US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,

So $50 million of Russian investment money should do the job...

{/quote]

then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.

GB wrote:

MiG-35 should  be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.

Lucky EU and US  waste time with dead end F-35 super expensive dog then.

So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m


gen Bondaryeev

" There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion,[b] I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.[/quote]

But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos.

GB wrote:

IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project

A light 5th gen fighter would be interesting, but with India it would take 10 years to write out the agreement to develop and then another 20 years to actually make the damn thing.

interesting then why Russians want to cooperate with India,and India with Russia.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

I am sure you have the quote?

so many times you had chance to read thsi and never did? wow. Bondayrev you read: 4++ (which MiG-29k is not even) are obsolete already.




https://ria.ru/20171123/1509476781.html

LMFS wrote:

If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too.

America class is a carrier too.

I can see LHA there

MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...

So, I finally did the simulation since you are so lazy [/quote]

simulation how close to reality?  did you calculate MiG-29 empty weight 13,700kgs mass too?
F-18 EW is ~10,000kg

+++

LMFS wrote:

F-35-90m MiG-195m

Nope, see above.

wiki:
takeoff strip is 110-195m. Let me think 110m with ho many and 195m only to annoy MiG-29kfans?
Длина разбега: 110—195 м

empty weight  ~13,700kg
Масс пустого: ~13700 кг

Ski Jump is no wonder, just helps to "buy" shorter takeoff.
F-35B you should compare with J-39 for example 500m takefff and MiG-29 with Yak.

LMFS wrote:

Yak 60m - MiG-195m

Yak was cancelled and had a serious accident due to hot air ingestion. After checking the design, Lockheed went for the lifting fan design instead of direct lift. You prefer to ignore this, for me these are reasons to suspect the design may have issues. I stick to serially produced fighters.

Did you check in Russian sources? Yak wasn't even cancelled . Programme was closed in 2003. Was never cancelled due any accident. Again Like I heard "flying concrete slabs on Yak landing "

MiG has many serious accidents killing many pilots. But if you prefer  MiG-29k was cancelled and cannot be  topic of our discussion. Prod is discontinued 2 years ago. Is dead.
The only task of 23 remaining fighters is to wait until Yak 141 successor will replace it      

But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?    

LMFS wrote:

Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.

Have seen no link sorry.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/


175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.   That's the feature traded for 10% of less internal fuel or ~10% more weight.

LMFS wrote:Checked the videos again and it is true they stop very fast and more importantly with little impact. Deck was empty, would be good to see the real operating conditions at sea, since it is not clear to me if landing and TO can take place in parallel (TO run very long) and how many fighters can be parked at the deck during these operations.

me too      

LMFS wrote:

BTW me a drama queen ?      

About MiG-29K? Totally!  

I'd prefer you call me a realist with this regard

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...
Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.

Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.

You have right to think Russia buys emals form China. I find it very very unlikely. As for Russia carrier programme., to em it looks like Russian already decided at least in foreseeable future to go vSTOL instead of CATOBAR direction.

The rolling technique is intended to allow pilots to recover to the ship with more stores: the combination of thrust from its rotating nozzle, lift-fan and lift generated by the wing as an effect of the (slow) forward movement of the aircraft can save up to 7000lbs greater all up weight (UAW). Without the SRVL technique, the F-35B would be forced to jettison some or all of its external store when returning to the ship.
According to some sources the Soviet Yak-38 “Forger” jets could perform rolling landings on carrier decks but required the use of a safety barrier net; however, it’s not clear whether actual tests were conducted at sea.
https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/

To be sarcastic, if need be, Russia could build China nuclear icebreakers, open free commercial use of the NSR & airspace, in exchange for Chinese single men coming to work (like N Koreans did) &/ marry their surplus single ladies (see the Russian Population tread), FFG/DDGs, & CVNs.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:France luckily for themselves can just buy all for a fraction of price. Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself. This is not only money question but also taking human resources from other projects.

You could argue Russia can buy it at minimum costs from the state-owned developers and use the technology resulting from the development as they want.

minimum cost means = low salary and no profits otherwise I've never heard about such thing  as low cost in hi tech.
+ thousands of engineers and skilled workers distracted from hi tech industry R&D  to achieve what? single use product, with no commercial application, little to offer over existing LIM powered transportation lines. Not to mention investing same resources into electric aircraft or magnetic/LIM powered mass transportation development  should give by order, or 2, of magnitude better RoI.

I my understanding current arms race is not sprint to make dash and then rest 60minutes. It might be nto even a marathon but it is a triathlon. each move has to be optimized with energy spending ...




I guess the choice of VSTOL direction is also because cost effects analysis. Not only short term but military what do we need and how much do we need to invest.  High "bycosts" of conventional CVN and better RoI in terms of new tech  brought (VSTOL). If you look at FPI/Rostech many projects are now around efficient STOL/VSTOL/VTOL

LMFS wrote:while France will pay a premium, cannot sell the technology and will remain hostage of US political will. Being independent is more difficult but it has advantages too.

no Sir, in foreseeable future how France can do anything engendering sales of US emals?[/quote]

Tsavo Lion wrote:

To be sarcastic, if need be, Russia could build China nuclear icebreakers, open free commercial use of the NSR & airspace, in exchange for Chinese single men coming to work (like N Koreans did) &/ marry their surplus single ladies (see the Russian Population tread), FFG/DDGs, & CVNs.

we all can dream but those dreams unlikely materialize though. I hope Russia and China could closer work in space but first clean on the ground is needed.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so many times you had chance to read thsi and never did? wow. Bondayrev you read: 4++ (which MiG-29k is not even) are obsolete already.

“Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.

https://ria.ru/20171123/1509476781.html

Well, believe it or not, I had not seen this precise quote before, it sounds very conclusive. This is how TASS reported it, same day news:

"Naturally," he said when asked whether works on a vertical take-off plane for aircraft carriers are being conducted.

"It is logical to surmise that over this time the existing models, I mean the MiG-29 and the Su-33, will become morally obsolete and a new aircraft will be needed in a span of ten years. We do have such plans," he said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/977195

Whose transcription is literal?

Little earlier, from July same year:

"The Defense Ministry’s plans, the long-term ones likely to be implemented toward the end of the 2018-2025 state program for armaments, include a project for building a new aircraft carrier. A new generation of planes is to become available by then… Also on the Defense Ministry’s plans that we are discussing with our aircraft manufacturers is the creation of a short takeoff and landing (STAL) aircraft. Possibly, it will be a vertical takeoff and landing plane," Borisov said.

The United Aircraft Corporation has not yet received any terms of reference for such planes but UAC chief Yuri Slyusar says he knows about such plans.

"We are waiting for the customer to formulate proposals. We are aware of such plans. For now the work on finalizing the plane’s shape and the expected technical parameters has not been completed yet," Slyusar said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/958156

"The Defense Ministry’s plans … somewhere at the finish of the state armament program for 2018-2025 envisage the commencement of the construction of a new aircraft cruiser and, of course, a new generation of aircraft will emerge by that time," Borisov said.

"Today, Su-33 and MiG-29 aircraft are the backbone of aircraft carriers, specifically, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Defense Ministry’s plans envisage developing an advanced short take-off and landing aircraft and, possibly, a vertical take-off and landing plane, and we are discussing this with our aircraft-building companies," he said at the MAKS-2017 international airshow outside Moscow.

"This is the development of the Yakovlev family of aircraft that was terminated. Such plans exist and we are discussing them, including the possible development of these areas for an advanced plane for aircraft carriers," he said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/956811

Which sounds to me, formulated as vaguely as possible (and besides in Russian so I cannot really grasp the nuances of the language), as "we need substitutes like in one decade for the naval planes and we are working on STOL or VTOL". But every plane operating from a carrier is STOL by definition (see MiG-29KVP for instance), so was not very conclusive, considering MoD has also not the biggest interest in informing in advance of all details of what they plan to do and besides are yet to take many decisions regarding carrier-related topics.

So as of July last year UAC had not completed a preliminary design and there was no official request from the MoD to develop. Yet Borisov talks of 7-10 years to series... if I have to judge the whole statement by bits like this I remain more than cautious, since this schedule estimation is, based on previous experience, simply false. Rest of evidence (constant hints at naval Su-57 and its STOL performance, carrier models presented, development of EMALS, existing doctrine and capability analysis) point out to future carriers operating STOBAR or CATOBAR.
So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL.

I can see LHA there

Yes, that carries fixed wing aircraft. That is, with carrier function. Remind you, for Russians aircraft carrying is a function of a vessel, not a concrete type of ship and all recent carriers were called "cruisers"

simulation how close to reality?  

Do not know, have you checked the calculations? The ones I made (a more simple approximation I admit) were giving similar values

did you calculate MiG-29 empty weight  13,700kgs mass too?

You did not understand did you? Empty weight is not relevant here but TO weight. Besides your number has no official source. I take the official (not wiki) MTOW and remove 2100 kg from it, considering the 4500 kg of the also official maximum load and the ca. 2400 kg load stated for the F-35B case. If you have a better number name it and your sources.

F-18 EW is ~10,000kg

Only 45% more than what you say, 14.550 kg.
What was your point here?

wiki:
takeoff strip is 110-195m. Let me think 110m with ho many and 195m only to annoy MiG-29kfans?
Длина разбега: 110—195 м

Try a corrector, I don't understand what you mean if words are incomplete
TO run depends on the vessel, of course. I referred above the run that would be needed considering acceleration only.

empty weight  ~13,700kg
Масс пустого: ~13700 кг

See above, Russian wiki is no different than any other data taken from somebody's arse... only because is a Russian one.

Ski Jump is no wonder, just helps to "buy" shorter takeoff.

No it is no wonder, only clever design

F-35B you should compare with J-39 for example 500m takefff and MiG-29 with Yak.

F-35B with J-39? You mean JAS-39??? Why???

Did you check in Russian sources? Yak wasn't even cancelled . Programme was closed in 2003.

Closed, cancelled, not produced in series. Put the name you want, it is the same for the case.

Was never cancelled due any accident. Again Like I heard "flying concrete slabs on Yak landing       "  

I have not said any of both.

But if you prefer  MiG-29k was cancelled and cannot be  topic of our discussion.

Serially produced plane unlike Yak is what I am saying

Prod is discontinued 2 years ago. Is dead.

Yet Rosoboronexport keeps offering it on their site? Where is the closing of the line, do you have a link?

But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?    

With a Russian STOVL of course we will discuss the parameters

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/
175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.   That's the feature traded for 10% of less internal fuel or ~10% more weight.

Ok I thought you had something official

GunshipDemocracy wrote:minimum cost means = low salary and no profits otherwise I've never heard about such thing  as low cost in hi tech.
+ thousands of engineers and skilled workers distracted from hi tech industry R&D  to achieve what? single use product, with no commercial application, little to offer over existing LIM powered transportation lines. Not to mention investing same resources into electric aircraft or magnetic/LIM powered mass transportation development  should give by order, or 2, of magnitude better RoI.

You are an expert in the field of linear induction motors from what I see. Let me call crap all of this. To start with, EMALS depends on the sourcing of the needed power electronics first of all. Which in turn need a considerable industrial base and can be used for VERY relevant present and future fields of transportation, power management, renewables and also electric flight.

What is the ROI of a carrier BTW? Curious to know how this metric is calculated

If you look at FPI/Rostech many projects are now around efficient STOL/VSTOL/VTOL

Like abroad, about urban mobility and electrification. Little to no use reported by now for fighters.

LMFS wrote:while France will pay a premium, cannot sell the technology and will remain hostage of US political will. Being independent is more difficult but it has advantages too.

no Sir, in foreseeable future how France can do anything engendering sales of US emals?

Independence of Russia due to own development...[/quote]

The Lavy & J-9 were cancelled but the J-10 is based on them:
https://www.wrmea.org/007-april/has-israels-u.s.-funded-lavi-jet-been-reborn-as-chinas-j-10-warplane.html
http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/648182#Foreign_participation

The IL-18 was cancelled in 1946 but revived in 1954: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-18#Design_and_development

The B-1 was cancelled but revived as the B-1B:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#New_problems_and_cancellation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#B-1B_program

The above examples show that cancellations can be reversed.
The VMF won't need this style of carrier ops anytime soon:



Their STOVLs will fill the capability gap:

LMFS wrote:To start with, EMALS depends on the sourcing of the needed power electronics first of all. Which in turn need a considerable industrial base and can be used for VERY relevant present and future fields of transportation, power management, renewables and also electric flight.

this all is crap, let me say. Future transportation needs all, electronics, advanced electric propulsion, new aerotech and likely hightemp superconductors. What here is not needed is emals.

Tell me how much US industry advanced due to EMALS tech? you seem to be expert in power electronics. At least you say so in this post.
Then which precisely branches did US developed because of it? and why only USA/China invested in EMALS is useful and cheap?
Can Germany, UK, Japan or France invest in EMALS? if it was useful yes, but they prefer to invest in future tech without.

LMFS wrote:What is the ROI of a carrier BTW? Curious to know how this metric is calculated

you can put money is useful tech (like VSTOL, materials, radars, sub/flying drones) or military useless, in Russian's case, economicallywise wasteful but cool magazines and forums like EMALS. Was it so useful why no official statements are about this?

LMSF wrote:

If you look at FPI/Rostech many projects are now around efficient STOL/VSTOL/VTOL

Like abroad, about urban mobility and electrification. Little to no use reported by now for fighters.

you private opinion doesn't match reality: Russian and Chinese mod decided invest billions in VSTOL fighter tech.
In Russia's case is clear: VSTOL fighter is going replace obsolete Su-33 and MiG29.

LMFS wrote:while France will pay a premium, cannot sell the technology and will remain hostage of US political will. Being independent is more difficult but it has advantages too.

no Sir, in foreseeable future how France can do anything engendering sales of US emals?

Independence of Russia due to own development...[/quote][/quote]


smart means focused only in directions you have to survive. You prefer symmetrical as I can see. Not Russians tho. Russian MoD is really in their plans and opinions so far.

GDP PPP China $24,000bn,US $20,000bn, Russia's $4,200bn. Only first 2 countries only invested in EMALS.

If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV

The Brazilians got their CV from the French & thus had to use CATOBAR too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(A12)

The ship's catapult was also reported to have problems. On 14 February 2017, the Navy announced the ship would be demobilized and subsequently decommissioned, citing the uneconomical cost of further repairs. The Brazilian Navy formally decommissioned the aircraft carrier NAe São Paulo on 22 November 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(A12)#Refit_and_decommissioning_(2012%E2%80%932018)

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so many times you had chance to read thsi and never did? wow. Bondayrev you read: 4++ (which MiG-29k is not even) are obsolete already.

“Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.

https://ria.ru/20171123/1509476781.html

LMFS wrote:Whose transcription is literal?

True, journos dotn do always best job in translations. Original words are below. If you dont agree with my translation please translate in any translator :

chronology:
from 2017
"Безусловно, это логично можно было предположить, что за такое время те модели, имеется в виду МиГ-29, Су-33 – они уже морально будут устаревать и через 10 лет, безусловно, потребуется создание нового летательного аппарата, такие планы есть: с укороченным взлетом и посадкой и с вертикальным взлетом", — сказал Борисов журналистам.



2018 August
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808211243-1c61.htm
«Сейчас ведутся работы над созданием концептуальных моделей и прототипов. Безусловно, это - будущее всех авианесущих кораблей. Необходим новый парк летательных аппаратов, для этого используются различные технологии, которые позволяют укороченный взлет и посадку, либо просто вертикальный взлет. Концептуально работы уже ведутся в министерстве обороны с прошлого года», - заявил Борисов.

"Now we are working on the creation of conceptual models and prototypes. Undoubtedly, this is the future of all aircraft carrying ships. A new fleet of aircraft is needed, for this purpose various technologies are used that allow shortened take-off and landing, or simply vertical take-off. Conceptually, work is already underway in the Ministry of Defence since last year," Borisov said.

LMFS wrote:The United Aircraft Corporation has not yet received any terms of reference for such planes but UAC chief Yuri Slyusar says he knows about such plans.

Chronology, Sir. Slyusar's statement, from  OAK, statement was dated in July 2017. Was he saying anything like that ever since?


If you check future Aircraft carriers thread - I quoted an interview with admiral: he expects that between 20221-2030 there will be new Perspective Aviation Complex of Deck Aviation (looks like PAK PA to me ;-)  

LMFS wrote:But every plane operating from a carrier is STOL by definition (see MiG-29KVP for instance), so was not very conclusive, considering MoD has also not the biggest interest in informing in advance of all details of what they plan to do and besides are yet to take many decisions regarding carrier-related topics.

of course  not, MiG-29k is by no means STOL fighter. Otherwise no BARpart would be needed, besides cannot start below 110m with min load, and 195m with reasonable one,without skijump.

Without ski jump ? 500m with payload?  

LMFS wrote:So as of July last year UAC had not completed a preliminary design and there was no official request from the MoD to develop. Yet Borisov talks of 7-10 years to series... if I have to judge the whole statement by bits like this I remain more than cautious, since this schedule estimation is, based on previous experience, simply false.

your opinion based on simple extrapolation of MiG-35 experiences is just false.

PAK FA chronology
2002/12 -   govt approved program
2004  Q1-Q2 finalization of preliminary design
2010  01 first flight

So 1,5 years for design, 6,5 till first flight.

n those times Russian industry was just beginning to re-vive from deep shit 90s.
Now all radars, weapons, engines, stealth tech, factories, engineers are there.


PAK PA he he is in works since 2017 why till 2028 cannot fly i dotn get.

LMFS wrote: Rest of evidence (constant hints at naval Su-57 and its STOL performance, carrier models presented, development of EMALS, existing doctrine and capability analysis) point out to future carriers operating STOBAR or CATOBAR.

Plastic models from Krylov + one statement about emals from, not even Rakhmanov (da boss), are all of your evidence?  So hook and anti corrosion covet takes 10 years?
not really convincing, no.    

LMFS wrote:Yes, that carries fixed wing aircraft. That is, with carrier function. Remind you, for Russians aircraft carrying is a function of a vessel, not a concrete type of ship and all recent carriers were called "cruisers"

no,  TAKR main strike force are missiles nor an air wing. So no, not every.

LMFS wrote:

wiki:
takeoff strip is 110-195m. Let me think 110m with ho many and 195m only to annoy MiG-29kfans?
Длина разбега: 110—195 м

Try a corrector, I don't understand what you mean if words are incomplete
TO run depends on the vessel, of course. I referred above the run that would be needed considering acceleration only.

Simply MiG-29k requires 195m to take off on Kuz in short. I presume with any useful payload not empty on Vikiramedia with 125m.

LMFS wrote:

empty weight  ~13,700kg
Масс пустого: ~13700 кг

See above, Russian wiki is no different than any other data taken from somebody's arse... only because is a Russian one.

does your ass have better data? dont be shy. Su-33 is also heavier then Su-27. Why this slower with stronger engines? any hints?

LMFS wrote:

Ski Jump is no wonder, just helps to "buy" shorter takeoff.

No it is no wonder, only clever design

glad we can agree on this

LMFS wrote:

F-35B you should compare with J-39 for example 500m takefff and MiG-29 with Yak.

F-35B with J-39? You mean JAS-39??? Why???

because for F-16V which  should be referred to could be even worse. I 've found 2000-5000feet.

LMFS wrote:

Was never cancelled due any accident. Again Like I heard "flying concrete slabs on Yak landing       "  

I have not said any of both.

wait, so you never said about damaged runway surface by V landing? shall I search in this thread?

LMFS wrote:

Prod is discontinued 2 years ago. Is dead.

Yet Rosoboronexport keeps offering it on their site? Where is the closing of the line, do you have a link?

if there is  a client US can reopen F-16( Bahrein)  so if any customer will come lines can be reopened.
But no MiGs are ordered since 2012. No MiG has been made since 2015. So 4 years.
Simply it is dead.

LMFS wrote:

But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?    

With a Russian STOVL of course we will discuss the parameters

I always welcome a constructive attitude toward discussion      

LMFS wrote:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/
175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.   That's the feature traded for 10% of less internal fuel or ~10% more weight.

Ok I thought you had something official

do you have anything official wrt MiG? me neither

Tsavo Lion wrote:If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.

Germans too ;-)

But this is about doctrine and applications. Frankly I dotn see France to get back to VSTOL development anytime soon. No money + already started 6gen programme with Germans.

They r too independent & proud to buy American or British fighters when they can design their own & also sell them.
And they planned to have 2 US-style flattops, even if smaller. But they had trouble with it, incl. the catapults. Classic example of biting more than they could chew.
Most, if not all, combat missions that they flew off the deck in recent years could be as well done by STOVLs, if they had them.

b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

Of course it could just mean they will be calling the Su-33 and MiG-29KR something else when their latest versions enter service in 10 years time... and these imaginary VSTOL will simply be cancelled again.

Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to

Russia cannot rely on China or Europeans for EMALS technology... they can develop their own.

They have been working on it for quite some time and probably already have prototypes they are working with...

Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt

They are spending billions on equally useless VSTOL fighters so why not?

then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.

A VSTOL 5th gen fighter design will cost as much as their current 5th gen fighter project at least.

So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m

Thank you... you clearly prove at the very same time that the US can afford to waste money on bullshit and the Russians cannot. Case proven.

gen Bondaryeev

" There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion, I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.

But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos. [/quote]

He over rates the 5th gen US fighters and under estimates the Russian 4++ gen fighters.

If the F-35 is a representative of the US 5th gen fighter, and Su-35 is representative of the Russian 4th gen then Russian 4th gen is all you need.

But clearly as he says they need a 5th gen carrier fighter... and the easiest quickest path to that is a naval Su-57.

interesting then why Russians want to cooperate with India,and India with Russia.

It is not a reason not to cooperate... just don't plan on ending up with anything any time soon.

All that work on the Su-30MKI and they ended up with an aircraft not even as good as the Su-35.

Brahmos is based on Yakhont, but because of export rules its performance does not approach the Onyx the Yakhont is based upon.

I am not saying things from the Flanker and Brahmos didn't improve the domestic models, but if you want a real case where a foreign partner helped greatly improve a system look at Pantsir and UAE.

“Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.

Yeah, and 40 years ago someone probably said the same thing with the Yak-41 going to replace both aircraft.... and guess what.

In 15 year time when experience has shown that new VSTOL aircraft to be a dog they will upgrade their MiGs and Sus and things will carry on as normal.

But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?

Sure... if you never want to discuss it... that is fine.

175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.

They are also better at crashing too.

According to some sources the Soviet Yak-38 “Forger” jets could perform rolling landings on carrier decks but required the use of a safety barrier net; however, it’s not clear whether actual tests were conducted at sea.

For years "Western experts" claimed the Forger couldn't perform a rolling landing or a landing take off... it was not until such operations were seen and filmed that they actually gave them credit for that capacity... which is why I don't think much of so called western experts.

Also on the Defense Ministry’s plans that we are discussing with our aircraft manufacturers is the creation of a short takeoff and landing (STAL) aircraft. [b]Possibly, it will be a vertical takeoff and landing plane," Borisov said.

Can we ever trust a certain persons posts again if they are going to use such fake quotes that omit rather critical information...

STAL sounds rather like what MiG are discussing for MiG-35 and Sukhoi are talking about with Su-57...

So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL

Not on the Kuznetsov...

this all is crap, let me say. Future transportation needs all, electronics, advanced electric propulsion, new aerotech and likely hightemp superconductors. What here is not needed is emals.

How do you know that technology developed for EMALS wont be applicable to other areas?

You don't.

Tell me how much US industry advanced due to EMALS tech? you seem to be expert in power electronics. At least you say so in this post.
Then which precisely branches did US developed because of it? and why only USA/China invested in EMALS is useful and cheap?
Can Germany, UK, Japan or France invest in EMALS? if it was useful yes, but they prefer to invest in future tech without.

You have things arse about as usual... you seem to be suggesting that because only the US and China are developing EMALS technology and Germany and Japan and the UK and France are not then it can't be worth doing... I guess Russia should just give up its space programme because most of those countries you listed have not invested in rocket technology to get into space...

you can put money is useful tech (like VSTOL, materials, radars, sub/flying drones) or military useless, in Russian's case, economicallywise wasteful but cool magazines and forums like EMALS. Was it so useful why no official statements are about this?

Still waiting for you to outline how VSTOL is useful tech and EMALS is a useless waste of money... Russia already spent money on the Yak-36, The Yak-38, The Yak-38M, and the Yak-41... which were all expensive and totally useless... if real war had broken out not a single VSTOL aircraft would have done more than either crashed or been shot down.

you private opinion doesn't match reality: Russian and Chinese mod decided invest billions in VSTOL fighter tech.
In Russia's case is clear: VSTOL fighter is going replace obsolete Su-33 and MiG29

Chinese and Russian MOD also both decided to develop EMALS technology too.

GDP PPP China $24,000bn,US $20,000bn, Russia's $4,200bn. Only first 2 countries only invested in EMALS.

Liar.

Russia is spending money developing EMALS and you know it you lying bitch.

If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.

The Americans also failed miserably with their VSTOL fighter designs and ended up buying British.

When it came time to develop a 5th gen stealthy VSTOL fighter they failed as well... with their own design... one company went with their own design and it lost the competition. The other company knew they needed an after burning engine that could rotate 95 degrees and they knew the only company on the planet with that experience was Yakovlev... They bought the engine nozzle technology and looked at their research and experience with separate lift engines and decided to go with Yakovlevs lift fan design... notice how they tell everyone all about that... but then the F-35 is probably the closest the Yak company will get to an in service VSTOL fighter in this century...

Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to:
Breakthrough announced in South China Morning Post by China in developing its own Improved EMALS technology which was done by use of advanced insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips. This sudden development of in house EMALS technology by China was only made possible due to acquisition of semiconductor companies-WeEn, Ampleon and Nexperia, which were acquired via sale of Freescale Semiconductors (NXP)'s Bipolar Power Division, RF Power division and Standards Products Division respectively and also by acquisition of some other European semiconductor companies.

You don't buy brand new untested technology... almost no one sells that anyway...

They are better off developing the technology themselves which will be sanction proof and they will make the components themselves rather than import them from a country that the US will likely target with sanctions to stop them.

Russia already spent money on the Yak-36, The Yak-38, The Yak-38M, and the Yak-41... which were all expensive and totally useless... if real war had broken out not a single VSTOL aircraft would have done more than either crashed or been shot down.

No, the USSR spend $ on them, & they weren't totally useless. They gained experience in VTOL design & carrier fixed wing flight ops.

The F-35B that uses Yak-41 TVC won't be useless either.
EMALS isn't a proven technology yet. The ocean environment is unforgiving. The Ford CVN may have many a/c crashes making it unfit for use. EMALS development may be stopped; it doesn't mean they'll succeed & adopt it on a flattop CVN that may or may not be built.
The US is developing space weapons, longer range AShMs & hyper-sonic missiles that will make any Russian CVNs as vulnerable as theirs r to Russian missiles; they'll be ready by the if/when they put to sea.

Tsavo Lion wrote:If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.

It is exactly the other way around. Navies with money use CATOBAR, the others settle for lesser capacity solutions, period. Or is it that China and US are the poor guys that have super-CVNs because they cannot afford a STOVL-only fleet? What logic is this? France knows what is the best and try to stick to it, they are managing quite decently until now. Royal Navy wanted their new carriers with EMALS too, but was too expensive so they got the F-35B and will have them doing rolling TO and landings on a huge deck to save no space in the end... it is a curious solution that may work for them, but RAF has already said they want more capable planes than the F-35B. So to me it is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim, sorry for having to point it out.

LMFS wrote: France knows what is the best and try to stick to it, they are managing quite decently until now. Royal Navy wanted their new carriers with EMALS too, but was too expensive so they got the F-35B and will have them doing rolling TO and landings on a huge deck to save no space in the end... it is a curious solution that may work for them, but RAF has already said they want more capable planes than the F-35B. So to me it is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim, sorry for having to point it out.

France can afford barely 1 CVN without VSTOL because they cannot afford them, instead they use Rafle-M with same level of performance but sliglty less expensive than F-35B only with much worse avionics and poor stealth capabilities. + US fylly designed and made tech.

wiki €79m in 2011
http://www.in2013dollars.com/2011-euro-in-2018


today $97m vs $115.5m


RN has 2 with bigger displacement, but France knows better only because you like it. Is this your only proof? not convincing , Sir.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Chronology, Sir. Slyusar's statement, from  OAK, statement was dated in July 2017. Was he saying anything like that ever since?

Dont try to make up a discussion. I just stated the facts, until that date at least there were no firm requirements. My point is that they are at the earliest stage of development, at best. Not even a name for the project, no carrier decision, no number of units. What you call a clear and firm program basis.

If you check future Aircraft carriers thread - I quoted an interview with admiral: he expects that between 20221-2030 there will be new Perspective Aviation Complex of Deck Aviation (looks like PAK PA to me ;-)  

Yeah, the news where they say they plan to buy that dead plane MiG-29K??
LMAO, big time

of course  not, MiG-29k is by no means STOL fighter. Otherwise no BARpart would be needed, besides cannot start below 110m with min load, and 195m with reasonable one,without skijump.

Use your knowledge of Russian and translate for us the meaning of MiG-29KVP please
 

your opinion based on simple extrapolation of MiG-35 experiences is just false.

Lying again. 7-10 years to series, not to first flight. PAK-FA, taking lessons from MFI, in the works since 2002 at least and still not in service. Look the rest of fighter programs, longer even. That is the reality. Bet something on having the STOVL in series in 2025/2028 if you have the guts

"The timeframe is defined by the technological cycle of the [plane’s] creation. Normally, this takes 7-10 years, if this goes into serial production," the vice-premier added.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1018022

Simply MiG-29k requires 195m to take off on Kuz in short. I presume with any useful payload not empty on Vikiramedia with 125m.

Check the damn simulation, come up with improvements if you can and stop making up crap. That's pretty much it.

wait, so you never said about damaged runway surface by V landing? shall I search in this thread?

I said I saw in front of my eyes a Harrier destroying the runway. Said nothing about Yak, you made it up.

No MiG has been made since 2015. So 4 years.Simply it is dead.

Your mouth turned to arse in less than a day, brilliant performance!

"This relates to replacing special aviation aircraft with new models and arming the Navy with shipborne fighter jets (MiG-29K/KUB), attack, transport and landing helicopters (Ka-52K) and drones," Kozhin said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1035224

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Tell me how much US industry advanced due to EMALS tech? you seem to be expert in power electronics. At least you say so in this post.  
Then which precisely branches did US developed because of it? and why only USA/China invested in EMALS is useful and cheap?
Can Germany, UK, Japan or France invest in EMALS? if it was useful yes, but they prefer to invest in future tech without.

It is you pulling claims from nowhere who has the burden of proof. Tell us how EMALS is preventing US from making progress in other fields of power management... it is the other way around my friend. I am not an expert in EMALS but sadly for you I happen to know a thing or two about power electronics, at least enough to call out elementary crap.

Russian and Chinese mod decided invest billions in VSTOL fighter tech.

You have no clue how much they are investing

GDP PPP China $24,000bn,US $20,000bn, Russia's $4,200bn. Only first 2 countries only invested in EMALS.

GB already called you out on that so no more comments

GarryB wrote:

So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL

Not on the Kuznetsov...

Given we need to rely on publicly available info and official quotes (sometimes apparently more than in common sense), the opinion can be defended, even when I don't agree.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:France can afford barely 1 CVN without  VSTOL because they cannot afford them,  instead they use Rafle-M with same level of performance but sliglty less expensive   than F-35B only with much worse avionics and poor stealth capabilities. + US fylly designed and made tech.

Oh my, you are setting the bar very high today
So they decide to develop a plane because it is a cheaper endeavour than buying off-the-shelf and not because they want to keep their industry alive and be as independent as possible, despite the sacrifice it means... third world countries needed to know this authentic revelation of yours to kick-off cutting edge aerospace industries of their own instead of buying shitty planes abroad. Even the last monkey on Earth will buy F-35s but France cannot afford them

As to F-35B having same performance of Rafale-M... really, give us a break

GarryB wrote:

b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

Of course it could just mean they will be calling the Su-33 and MiG-29KR something else when their latest versions enter service in 10 years time... and these imaginary VSTOL  will simply be cancelled again.

like MiG-29k in 90s? no, not really.  So far the only argument against new deck fighter is your opinion. Im afraid this is not enough for Russian MoD.

GB wrote:

Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt

They are spending billions on equally useless VSTOL fighters so why not?

well, I was actually askignabout real not imaginary argument. AWACS can be STOL or VSTOL (if tiltrotor) so what would be argument for money for emals besides?

GB wrote:

then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.

A VSTOL 5th gen fighter design will cost as much as their current 5th gen fighter project at least.

c'mon you are really intelligent guy. Why do you pretend to be moron? try to be serious.

BTW PSK-FA cost ~₽60bn so $1bn to to days prices (wiki says in 2010 ~$3bn). Of course now you have to pay people more but Engines, avionics, stealth "skins" all is there. to be reused. Factories have specialists and are up and running.

SO both time and costs can be reasonable.

GB wrote:

So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m

Thank you... you clearly prove at the very same time that the US can afford to waste money on bullshit and the Russians cannot. Case proven.

i assume you understand written language. Then read an interview with gen. Bondaryev.

GB wrote:

gen Bondaryeev

" There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion, I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.

But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos. [/b]

He over rates the 5th gen US fighters and under estimates the Russian 4++ gen fighters.

If the F-35 is a representative of the US 5th gen fighter, and Su-35 is representative of the Russian 4th gen then Russian 4th gen is all you need.[/quote]

wow, not every day I can talk about guy knowing better Russian AF then its former Commander-in-Chief RuAF. Now is SovFed in security , who joined RuAF in 1977 and in 2015 retired. In 2016 gave a nice MiG-29 show in advanced fighter skills. 400 cobat sorties, commanding RuAF in Syria. 3000 hours flight experience.

PhD in technology.

So you know better diagnose?  dude what are you smoking after weekend?! or it as after wild night  in "Blue Oyster" ?      


Let's return to facts: Irbis N035 X-band so doesnt "see " stealth that far. English wiki says 0,01m RCS is 90km while F-35 can see him form at least 240km.

GB wrote:But clearly as he says they need a 5th gen carrier fighter... and the easiest quickest path to that is a naval Su-57.

yo yo expert! yes and for adding a hook they need special programme,name Perspektivny Aviastionny Kompek Palubny Aviatsyi? PAK PA (vide: recent interview  chief of naval AF) and 7-10 years?

     

GB wrote:
Yeah, and 40 years ago someone probably said the same thing with the Yak-41 going to replace both aircraft.... and guess what.
In 15 year time when experience has shown that new VSTOL aircraft to be a dog they will upgrade their MiGs and Sus and things will carry on as normal.

MiGs you meant those 4 on Kuz that were actually flying? dont bother, risks?  leave this to Russian MoD/OAK. They have real knowledge      

GB wrote:

But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?

Sure... if you never want to discuss it... that is fine.  

but till VSTOL is up and running lets talk about famous, however never seen by anybody except you,  "damaged runway" shall we?      

GB wrote:

175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.

They are also better at crashing too.[/b]

MiG-29k, 4 crashes, 3 pilots killed. 65 built in total.
F-35b has what record again? till June 75 built.

GB wrote:

this all is crap, let me say. Future transportation needs all, electronics, advanced electric propulsion, new aerotech and likely hightemp superconductors. What here is not needed is emals.

How do you know that technology developed for EMALS wont be applicable to other areas?

You don't.  

damn,  Germany and Japan are technologically backwards in magnetic trains or power electronics? dont be shy tell me which precisely emals tech is useful in civil life?
You know right?

GB wrote: because most of those countries you listed have not invested in rocket technology to get into space...

Germany,France = ESA
Japan = Jaxa

yo yo expert.

GB wrote:Still waiting for you to outline how VSTOL is useful tech and EMALS is a useless waste of money...

dear expert, VSTOL is tech chosen by Russian MoD fora reason. I am still waiting for "damaged runway" , so when will I see those damages?
     ho ho ho

GB wrote:Chinese and Russian MOD also both decided to develop EMALS technology too.
+++
Russia is spending money developing EMALS and you know it you lying bitch.

tell me exactly when MoD said about Russian EMALS programme? I  must have missed somehow.
Dont be so shy and gay in one, share with us!