Those estimates r based on trials already conducted. If they r later found to be exaggerated, the loss of face & future contracts will be catastrophic, to say the least!
It was never fitted with a full avionics suite... there were already plenty of exaggerated claims like it could take off from any field...
Look at information about the F-35B... can take off from strips of road.... as long as you put down pieces of heat resistant metal to protect the roads.... in other words can take off from pre fabricated airstrips of special heat resistant metal...
Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.
A Yak-41 today would be worse than a MiG-29K2.
What they need now is a light 5th gen fighter... making it VTOL will make it weak and limited... and it is going to take 10 years to design and get even close to serial production level.
MiG has a light 5th gen fighter design... that would be much quicker to get into service but I seriously doubt it is VTOL.
That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future!
So you think developing a 5th gen VTOL fighter is cheaper than fixing a cable arresting system?
They have land based cable arresting systems you realise?
It was just something that couldn't be fixed off the coast of Syria... they didn't need to redesign the whole ship.
Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg
Don't be a stats fanboi... the Yak-41 would have two R-77s and four R-73s, so we are talking about 350kgs for the two BVR missiles and about 450kgs for the four WVR missiles. The Su-33 will likely have 4 R-27ER missiles and 2 R-27ET missiles and four R-73s, so 350kgs for each R-27E and 450kgs of WVR missiles so the Yak-41 will have about 900kgs of payload and the Flanker will have about 2,2 tons of weapons.
It is pretty clear which offers the best payload performance...
There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!
It only happened because it was cheap and it was cheap because set up production was paid for by the Indian order.
No Indian order and no new MiGs for the Russian navy.
It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example.
You said in another thread they have no Zircon and no MiG-41... they also have no LHDs either.
Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons.
Because it does not exist right now even on paper... the cost of developing a new VSTOL fighter will be enormous and take a lot of time... the Americans could not even afford it on their own and had to force most of their allies to buy into the programme of making the F-35 and it is still stupid expensive and not that impressive.
Investing rather less money in a conventional take off light 5th gen fighter that can share all design and components with a land based equivalent that could be sold on the international market makes rather more sense. All that requires is slightly bigger carriers and EM cats which they are developing anyway.
the bigger carriers will be more useful and only slightly more expensive.... operationally compared with the fleet of other ships they would operate the difference in cost is negligible and well worth spending to get real carrier capabilities.
Costs higher why? MiG is new and cheap?having separate ships for LDH, ASW helicopter carriers and pure AC is cheaper?
MiG-29K2s are paid for and can be used for the next 10 years... it will take that long to develop a VSTOL fighter anyway.
There are no Russian ships able to carry VSTOL aircraft that don't already carry MiG-29ks anyway.
I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.
fair enough, but my opinion is that the money and cost (VSTOL aircraft crash a lot... look up the history of the Yak-38M) they would be better off keeping the helicopter carriers as helicopter carriers and have 2 proper medium carriers with the Kuznetsov also kept and upgraded with some of the stuff the new carriers will get just to test... ie EM cats and nuke propulsion.
The Mistral type helicopter carriers will have landing capability and helicopter capability and would be ideal for emergency operations/disaster and goodwill visits as well as for landing forces to deliver troops to places around the world when needed.
Aircraft carriers would be needed at the same time and for other purposes, so when landing forces you will need aircraft carriers too... not instead of.
Having three ships means two will be available and one will be in overhaul... so having three Mistral type vessels means only one helicopter lander and one carrier with maybe 6 fighters.
I would say two helicopter carriers and two real carriers means two ships landing vehicles and distributing supplies while one carrier offers air cover and support...
Thanks! The land-based Yak-43 would have
The Yak-43 is a paper project of a proposed design... I never saw anything remotely suggesting anything they could fit to balance that power at the front of the aircraft.
And steel planking would not suffice for such thrust.
There was a late model version of the M79 engine for the Yak that had 20-22 tons of thrust in a turbofan design.
They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.
If they use a development of the NK-32 engine for the VTOL role they actually have to develop it.
They can't just rock up to a Tu-160 in a hangar and unbolt and engine and just fit it into the Yak-43 and it is all done.
Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!
If they bankrupt the country spending money on dead end projects then it is a problem.
They are already developing EM cats they have said as much... having a naval fixed wing plane that is almost exactly the same as a land based model saves a lot of money and time and it means a light 5th gen fighter that can be sold on the international market to all Russias allies... or just to piss off the west.
they could sell potent little fighters to Iran and Syria and North Korea... why would any of them buy a naval fighter with small payload and short range that destroys the ground it takes off from?
It'll take even less than 1/2 the time- the US didn't have STOVL & used
They had the AV-8II which was superior in every way to the Yak-38M.
What they needed was help with the engine which they had no experience in developing... it was Rolls Royce all the way but even RR had no experience with afterburning engines and thrust vectoring nozzles.
Otherwise, do u think they r idiots to have & announce STOVL plans?
they will announce plans and they might even build prototypes but after testing will find again the VSTOL fighters and more expensive, more fragile, and less effective... once the EM cats are working they wont look back.
EM cats on a Helicopter carrier would allow MiG-29s or new 5th gen CTOBAR fighters to operate from Mistral sized vessels...
They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?
STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.
Yeah... every few years a newly elected government will start a work for the unemployment scheme where unemployed people do work to earn their unemployment payments.... problem is that there are not enough jobs and not enough people to manage all those people and it always goes tits up.
The people in power will have people from Yak and MiG coming to them with all sorts of claims and schemes... the idea of a VTOL fighter is not new and has been going around for years... the problem is that it is BS and is becoming less likely every year because now a supersonic VTOL fighter needs even more engine power which makes VTOL even less likely to be safe.
they will get to a prototype stage and it will be cancelled because it will be too expensive if the EM cats are successful they can use them on any sized ship to get aircraft airborne...