Peŕrier wrote:GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Regardless if one likes it (me) or not (GarryB at fist place this is already budgeted in the new Goszakazplan so we'll see it live in less then 10 years. :-)
As for VTOL qualities, landing space is I guess first requirement (Arctic, fleet, short runways in case of war). As for radar or speed. Who needs now speed? look at Rafale, Hornet or F-35 they are not even 2Ma. Range of speed same as in Yak-141 frm 80s. Radar? who told you that now VTOL has to have worse radar? vide F-35B.
Being budgeted doesn't mean it will be developed and inducted in service.
History is full of project that NEVER made to the operational status, some being aborted still on the drawing boards.
Precisely which one? Yak-38? F-35 or Yak-141?
Second, everybody is entitled to his own opinion on Russia's defence spending, but it is just a fact that the Kremlin and various State's bodies have an interest to keep most if not all of its military industrial base alive.
A challenging project, even if not really meant to reach serial production, could be a nice trick to both keep some bureau afloat, give him a glimp of confidence about his future and hone his technological skills.
Perhaps one of the reasons. Exactly the same in US France (no fighter production at all ) or Germany.
I still do not believe we will see any, I mean any, operational combat aircraft with VTOL capabilities.
There is a simple reason behind this skepticism: a combat aircraft is supposed to survive when confronted by opponents combat aircrafts.
It require electronic on par, performances on par, pilot's training on par, tactics on par, C3I on par.
Remove one of the above, and you will struggle to maintain overall parity.
Remove two or more, and you will end on the losing side.
A VTOL aircraft has a big penalty in the hardware required for vertical take offs and landings, both on weight and in volumes.
We do not talk about Yak-38 or Sea Harrier but now? like which of elments F-35 is missing? is is not operational, really?
There is no chance a VTOL could have same range, same electronics, same payload of a CTOL aircraft having same technological level and MTOW.
If that wouldn't be true, it would be like somebody carrying an Anvil on his back could have same sport performances of when free of any ballast.
It is simply not true, baĺlast is and wiĺl always be a penalty.
Moreover, Russia has not a dozen big LHD or LHA to deploy some meaningful number of VTOL aircrafts.
but also has many short runways in potential war zones near its borders besides who told you Russia is not planning to build one? it was stated : first fighter then ship.
The U.S. have at least the excuse behind the F-35B, by the way a STOVL, not a VTOL aircraft, of around a dozen LHD and LHA, plus a couple of British STOVL carriers and at least one Italian pocket STOVL carrier.
With the U.S. ship's displacing around 45K tons, the British carriers more than 60K tons, and only the Italian one close to the 30k tons mark.
Russia could have, at best, three flat tops around 30K tons, neither so large nor very big.
It's debatable if a ship around 30K tons could operate more than 8 - 10 aircrafts. Actually, if an amphibious one, it will be able to operate no more than 5 or 6.
We dont know what Russia can have because there is no plan to build big or small. First is not size but function and geographical specifics. For patrolling far north to protect SSBNs, helping in local wars/cisises, landing with troops?
At best, there will be around a couple dozens aircrafts embarked at any time, but actually there will be more likely less than 20, because an amphibious ship has no enough space and facilities to support a meaningful number of combat aircrafts.
Unfortunately reality proved you're wrong compare
Spanish Juan Carlos I
Aircraft composition: Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots (31 fighters STOVL right?)
Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Pure transport: 25 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Displacement: 26,000 tonnes
The British, having realized that, acted at the contrary: they have developed a purpose built STOVL carrier, centered around a requirement for around 40 STOVL fighters, then expanded the project to be able to act as a LHA when needed. That way, they ended designing two ship's displacing more than 60K tons, and still when acting as an LHA the carriers will have to get rid of most of the aircrafts, to make room to assault helicopters.
and what's wrong with that? let's not fight wars form the past. New carriers will have different ways of fighting. With Zircons, drones UAV/UCAVs and underwater, air-wing might have different tasks then in US carrier fleet.
Pls note Russia is in foreseeable future focusing on Sea Denial not Sea Control strategy. Different strategies different tools to do the job.