Russian VTOL fighter development

As for topic of supercarriers, military just ordered design of STOVL/VTOL fighter jet. You don't do that if you plan on building a supercarrier.

The military also ordered the Yak-41 and after tests it was cancelled.

Russia does not need a super carrier.

A kuznetsov size carrier would be all they needed with its design modernised and optimised and its propulsion and sensors and weapons completely upgraded and new aircraft it would be a much more powerful vessel.

They do need larger ships like cruisers to support a few carriers... but not for a decade or more.

PapaDragon wrote:Forget any Soviet design or concept, way too much time passed for that to be reused. Su-57 was fresh platform. This one will be too (with off-the-shelf components used where possible of course).

I am however pretty sure that it will have much bigger wings than both Yak-38 and Yak-141. Those had some hilariously tiny wings, like F-104 Starfighter tribute band...

We'll see.

They'll be dropping more than just dumb bombs.

Carrier aviation is always expensive, no going around that. But with this approach they want to end up with larger number of smaller vessels instead of small number of larger vessels.  

More flexibility and less expenditures .

Flexibility?... i doubt that, literally the only job it can do is deep strikes against guys in caves.
And coordinating with other units will be very difficult, on a lesser note, there is also the lack of relationship/comradery between pilots and sharing of flight experience.

As for less expenditures, to start of with the development cost of this aircraft will probly be around $4 Billion (half of Pak-fa's dev costs), and each unit will without a doubt cost more then conventional aircrafts (lets say $25mill, $9mill more than the Mig-29K) and each ship will have to be equipped and manned to handle such an aircraft.
If i am gonna be honest, cost wise, the aircraft carrier is starting to look good.

Ka-52s are great and they will definitely be using them. I mean the moment first ship with any king of flat deck is finished they will be first thing on board. And they have already been used in combat from Kuznetzov.

But jets simply have more speed, range, payload and can fly higher than helicopters.

True, except maybe that payload part, we really need to wait and see what they're gonna do.
Also everything costs extra as well.

In todays Kommersant about vertical take off fighters in new goszakazplan:


Trillions have two ally - the army and navy
The president is ready to sign the arms program for 2018-2027

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3500710

" At the same time, research will be conducted on the long-range aviation complex for long-range aviation and the development of a plane with vertical take-of

Let's wait till 22nd though to be sure. If so then aircraft cruiser welcome back. I wonder how close to Yak-141 will be new fighter...

Now that i think about it, wouldn't a VTOL UCAV make more sense for bombing guys in caves, saves a lot of cash there.

If we think of it like that, what is this VTOL for?????
Unless you ascribe to the idea that "missiles will decide" and "the dogfight era is over" this entire VTOL venture seems foolish.

On a more serious note, the entire idea that everything would go nuclear just because a fleet was lost is also debatable.
I mean really, what more important your country or some ships?

I made you a dedicated topic for STOVL/VTOL russian prospective aircrafts

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:..................
On a more serious note, the entire idea that everything would go nuclear just because a fleet was lost is also debatable.
I mean really, what more important your country or some ships?

Over ships? No, of course not.

But list of enemies that can take out entire fleet is short and war with them does not end with fleet.

If the objective is only to cripple there naval forces, then a hot war may be evaded.

George1 wrote:I made you a dedicated topic for STOVL/VTOL russian prospective aircrafts

Efaristo! 22nd is official version approved then we'll see what's there

AlfaT8 wrote:
If the objective is only to cripple there naval forces, then a hot war may be evaded.

and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?

The U.S has assets to respond conventionally, what's Russia got, that's right nukes, now would they use those nukes just because of they lost some ships.
I believe we work from the belief that they will indeed do so, but would they??

PapaDragon wrote:Well that's the downside of NATO membership for small countries.

It offers cover but also turns you into perfect low priority nuclear scapegoat. Russia has option of using nukes without risking instant MAD because they dont' need to target US mainland to send a message.

Several mushroom clouds over Europe can be powerful stimulus to swing the public opinion in USA towards more diplomatic approach.

Cold War generation is gone and millennials who are accustomed to iPhone, Whole Foods and Twitter are in no rush to trade Boston for [insert name of European city here, preferably East European].

In their place what would you prefer? Sitting in Starbucks sipping coffee or sitting in fallout shelter sipping irradiated water?  

And don't even get me started on millennials in Europe, especially West one.

Different times we live in.

Well since this is all a "what if" situation, we just gotta hope it never happens.

Back to VTOL, We'll have to wait and see, but generally i don't the investment paying off anywhere near as much as an actual carrier.

PapaDragon wrote:The thing is I don't thinks it's their investment. Most likely it's UAE's money that is fueling this whole project.

And they have one actual carrier now. One is not enough. It's the numbers game.

That's another thing, to what extent is the UAE investment here, i have heard no details here whatsoever.

I am more concerned about how dated it is, useful, but with today's tech, we can do way better.

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

They would be best off with dozens of huge supercarriers and hundreds of nuclear battlecruisers

But can they build and pay for even fraction of it? Hell no, not even close.

No, that would not be attainable... I am only interested in what they could realistically manage on their budget and within the available time frame.

An all small ship fleet or a mixed fleet with large and small ships. A single super carrier a few medium sized carriers or lots of small carriers that are like destroyers and provide their own support because they could not afford them and support vessels.

Nice off-topic deflection, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Some are suggesting all small ships could be an alternative to a mixed fleet of ships of different sizes... small, medium, and large.

Not practical? Only a complete moron would say something like this.

Nukes are THE MOST PRACTICAL tool of war ever conceived.

They kept the peace for decades and will do so most likely for centuries.

Nukes are only reason why Russia still exists. Nukes are what keept that country from being ripped into tiny pieces back in the 90s.

Only absolute idiot does not see their infinite value.

Tree-huggers may whine, liberals may squeal, but nukes are one thing you can ALWAYS rely on to get the job done and keep you safe.

How about we stop referring to people as complete morons first of all.

Second which country on the planet has said nukes are enough and have not developed a conventional military.

Nukes work as a red line, but if you ever actually have to use them everyone dies... If Russia only actually had nukes in the 1990s then what would have stopped all those coloured revolutions?

Do you think the Georgians would have withdrawn from South Ossetia if Russia threatened to nuke them?

Would ISIS have backed off if Russia threatened to nuke them?

I am however pretty sure that it will have much bigger wings than both Yak-38 and Yak-141. Those had some hilariously tiny wings, like F-104 Starfighter tribute band...

The biggest design fault in the Yak-38M and the Yak-41 was their small wings made small to allow supersonic or high speed flight.

Obviously the Yak-38M was not supersonic but they wanted it to go as fast as possible as a fighter.

But even a big wing wont save these dogs.

Any design you create could be redesigned as a CTOL fighter design of much much better performance.

Now that i think about it, wouldn't a VTOL UCAV make more sense for bombing guys in caves, saves a lot of cash there.

A Kalibr missile is Vertical Take Off and Impacting, has a range of 2,500km at the moment but could be extended to 5,000km fairly easily, is not that expensive and risks no pilots and can be stored until needed and is always ready to use in any weather day or night.

GarryB wrote:
Any design you create could be redesigned as a CTOL fighter design of much much better performance.
+
A Kalibr missile is Vertical Take Off and Impacting, has a range of 2,500km at the moment but could be extended to 5,000km fairly easily, is not that expensive and risks no pilots and can be stored until needed and is always ready to use in any weather day or night.

Nevertheless in foreseeable  future neither US not UK nor France relay on tomahawk missiles only still keep investing in good old fighters.
You may of course disagree but  then all clients of F-35B and Russian future (budgeted) VTOL fighter disagree with you. I guess must be a valid reason.

Vertical landing and take off  has its important features like little space for storing, landing fighters. With short take off and vertical landing you can use virtually any of LHD ships to have 12-20 fighters' aircraft carrier.

Short take off amid scarcity airfields has its value as well.  My educated guess is one more reason why Russians are going in this direction.

Nevertheless in foreseeable future neither US not UK nor France relay on tomahawk missiles only still keep investing in good old fighters.
You may of course disagree but then all clients of F-35B and Russian future (budgeted) VTOL fighter disagree with you. I guess must be a valid reason.

For the US the aircraft is everything.... the Soviet and Russian Army both have/had the means to defend themselves from air interference... the US Army relies on the USAF. The USN has its own air force that it relies on for its real attack strength.

The simple fact is that the USN does not see the VTOL fighter as useful... the VTOL model of the F-35 is used by the Marines which have to use VTOL aircraft because of the size of their carriers. The USN has cat assisted take off and arrested landing F-35s and will rely on them in the future.

The only countries buying the VTOL model of the F-35 do so because they don't want anything much bigger than a helicopter carrier...

Vertical landing and take off has its important features like little space for storing, landing fighters. With short take off and vertical landing you can use virtually any of LHD ships to have 12-20 fighters' aircraft carrier.

If they don't have ski jumps then performance from them will be very limited.

Also for the US having some VTOl aircraft for the Marines is OK because to support their operations they have 13 super carriers with real fighters to do the actual job of dealing with enemy aircraft.

If you only have VTOL aircraft then there are not that many forces you could take on safely.

LHD ships would be better loaded with helicopters to properly support landings instead of half fighters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh my...

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

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

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

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

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