Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

.if they are going to adapt an aircraft into a carrier based aircraft why on earth would they choose a Ukrainian plane design?

..you make short little 200m airstrips they can operate from, but then war breaks out and you want to land supplies and heavy equipment but all the nearby runways are shitty little 200m strips that no transport aircraft can operate from...

GarryB wrote:

a) Yak was never cancelled, read Russian sources. Was closed.

Cancelled. Military funding cut, no longer included in future plans for procurement... finished.

OK you dont get words difference meaning, not my problem.  VSTOL fighter is now is going  to replace MiGs. And MiG is not funded, no future plans for procurement, finished      

That's quite logical to me, there is always better to spend shitload of money on decent VSTOL then loads of money on shitty MiG-29k. I mean 6x as many as VSTOLs      
as average one per six is flying according to Indian auditors      

GB wrote: Vertical take off is a circus trick and totally useless in a real military force... it limits payload and fuel capacity and burns a lot of fuel and is a high risk procedure and with little to no benefit. Vertical landing is also risky but at the end of the mission when the weight is much lower it makes more sense.b

ekhm vertical landing means you can also vertically take off.  Application of VTO? well you need to ask military guys how they see it at best. VSTOL is in demand. Growing demand as real worlds evidence say. After Russia  China has joined VSTOL club. Congratulations to Chinese comrades      

GB wrote:

TsavoL wrote:Modified AN-71/-72/-74s with shortened fuselage is also an option for AWACS & COD/ASW/tanker

If they are going to adapt an aircraft into a carrier based aircraft why on earth would they choose a Ukrainian plane design?

GB wrote:

Partially agreed. Although technically true, financially unlikely. Russian Navy  unlikely can fund  a separate  platform  only for deck AWACS/ tanker/ transport and I see so far no existing candidates  for this.

I see no existing candidates for VSTOL fighter either.... what are you suggesting... are you saying you have not heard of anything so it wont happen?

The difference is substantial,  the  VSTOL programme is approved and funded and new platform of sea based AEW is only in your head so far.  
Financially there is no sense spending billions $ equivalent to a plane made in 4 pieces.

You dont have to bother, high speed helo and tilt-rotors are being developed now      

GB wrote:So you design your crappy short range slow low payload STOVL fighter and you make short little 200m airstrips they can operate from, but then war breaks out and you want to land supplies and heavy equipment but all the nearby runways are shitty little 200m strips that no transport aircraft can operate from... MiG-31s can use them in an emergency either and have to ditch into the sea... yeah of course because making real air strips is so hard and expensive.... right...

VSTOL even if crappy is much better then outgoing models. That's why is gonna replace obsolete MiG-35/29k with pathetic serviceability record family      

Perhaps GB can make strips everywhere,  2kms runway is easy in principle, and cheap.  but real military's opinions which I've read so far  stated otherwise.  
You can read, perhaps, some opinions of Russian, Chinese or US military and tell me about easiness of building long runway everywhere?

GB wrote:

wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role  russia  russia  russia
Kudos ot myself

And you have proven my point... short range useless VSTOL fighters protect the short range area over the ships already covered by CIWS and have neither the speed nor the range to go out and engage an enemy threat... or just identify it correctly so other measures can be taken.

GB wrote:

Payload of F-35B (VSTOL one) is bigger  than any of Russian STOBAR fighters at the moment. Range? really this 350 kilometers counts that much in fleet air  defense missions?
In case of Yak well..

F-35B is not an option for the Russian Navy...

GB wrote:

a) MiG-29k even after 25 years has never delivered much of its promises really:at most average performance, poor radar (cheek Indian claims), extremely low serviceability. And its maneuverability is on level of US F-35B, which was not built to maneuverability doctrine.

Over 300 in service and how many F-35s actually operational?

then less then 15,5% oherwise MiG-29k wins in every case      
Serviceability of F-35 should be compared after 25 years of improvements so in 2040 to be fair.        But then will be rather F-35D upgrade AFAIK.

GB wrote: they claim stealth and superior radar will allow it to defeat enemy aircraft at range... when the MiG jams the F-35s four BVR missiles then it will be in trouble.

GB wrote:

b) Russian navy preferred to extend life of Su-33 instead and invest in VSTOL instead of wasting money on  MiG-29k/35

The Russian navy spends very little on aircraft so it will invest in extending the lives of all its fighters... MiG-29KRs included.

GB wrote:

c) Su-33 was intended to operate from any Soviet carrier, same as Yak-141 and MiG-29k originally.

Kiev class?

Ulyanovsk Class.  BTW Su-33 was actually tested on TAKR Tbilisi. Wait wait Tbilisi was renamed to Kuz      

GB wrote: and they had better talk to Yak about the auto ejection system or they are going to lose pilots.

GB wrote:  a Su-57K is a relatively straight forward modification of an existing type...

making VSTOL from Su-57 is no trivial thing you know      

GB wrote: the drawings and plastic models you are posting are drawings and plastic models only...

c'mon, make up your mind,  what you want to talk about? past? like MiG-35 and MiG-29k or the perspective fighters like Korean fighters?
Actually MiG-35 is also so far plasticwarez level of combat record       

GB wrote:

And MiG-35 in promises, since MiG hasn't been able not only to build to build any Vgen fighter but even to build a decent deck fighter.

Yeah... MiG-35 is a promise... but these drawings and plastic models are dead cert hard evidence and proof they are the best performing aircraft in their field with perfect radar and engines and excellent 100% serviceability... wow I think they might even have a few kills.
You hate for MiG is amusing.

GB wrote:

Yak 41 did work, had never had a chance for funding tho.

It was never going to be as good as a cheaper and simpler MiG-29K let alone MiG-29KR so it was dumped before more money was wasted.

Facts say:  Yak-141 did work, had 1 crash and killed no pilots unlike 3 crashes of MiG-29k and 3 pilots killed.both programmes were stopped due to under-funding.  MiG-29k was re-started only due to Indian order. not its dubious characteristics. Unfortunately its  record in India was a disgrace fr Russian aerospace industry.  MiG reached as low as 15,5% serviceability      . Then as tech improved and funding on fighters increased Russians decided to invest in VSTOL technologies.

Even MiG decided to kill 29k name. Now they will offer MiG-35.

GB wrote:

Perhaps you didnt have a chance to notice but last 20 years of so so called stand off weapons has been developed.

So why launch from a plane at 300km when you can launch from a ship or sub from 2,000km?

GB wrote:

BTW Yak-141 load was 2,600kg so glad we agree

The only way the Yak-41 could carry 2,600kgs of external load would be if it had four external drop tanks... which makes it a 30mm cannon armed gun fighter.
With four weapons pylons it would be armed with two R-77s and two R-73s, which is less fire power than a early model MiG-29 with a simple cheap upgrade.

GB wrote:

There is no dog fighting anymore with radars with 250km range on stealth aircraft. And capable IRST systems.  17km vs 15,5? will this difference compensate what precisely? AA missiles work at last to 25km.

Yeah, with both aircraft having self defence ESM equipment and towed decoys and the like it is going to come down to a gun fight.
Detecting the F-35 is what the AWACS platform the MiG is operating with is for and the AWACS the F-35 is using will be shot down with R-37M missiles soon enough.
In a gun fight the F-35 will get its arse kicked.

after wiki
MiG-29k
Radar Zhuk-ME [11]

Waveband: X
Detection range of air targets 5m2:
against the sky / land in front hemisphere: 130/120 km
against the sky / land in the rear hemisphere : 50/40 km


F-35B The APG-77
provides 120° field of view in azimuth and elevation,[citation needed] which is the highest possible value for a flat phased array antenna.[2] Unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has an operating range of 125–150 mi (201–241 km),[3] against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. A range of 400 km or more, against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target, with the APG-77v1 with newer GaAs modules, is believed to be possible while using more narrow beams.[


MiG-29k with R-37 ?! in which video game?!!!! Can you at least from time to time read the real data?      

GB wrote:

KR is no magic of name - R stands worm Russian not better, actually Indian ones have better preference

What would you know... you didn't even realise the current models are different from the ones that first flew in 1988...  

yup, and after 30 years actually  they still fail to deliver. Indian record of serviceability reached  tadam 15,5%! check auditors note.  So 1 per 6 is able to fly      

The AN-72 family was started in the USSR:
First flight 22 December 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72
First flight November 1983

If it'll work, why not? As late Deng Xiaoping said, if a cat catches mice, it doesn't matter if it's black or white.

Like spokes principle in civil aviation, there will be 1 big airfield with a few smaller 1s 100s of miles away, & as mentioned, they could be resupplied by An-72/-74, Mi-6/-10/-26/-38s & future tiltrotors:

OK you dont get words difference meaning, not my problem.

Besides CATOBAR being more expensive to build, maintain & operate, it's less safe.

Snapped cables, cold launches, & wrong settings maimed/killed many sailors & pilots, not to mention wrecked planes. The VMF would rather avoid all that!

Believe me, they can design STOVL fighters equal or even better than the F-35B (which uses some elements of the Yak-41), esp. after the Su-27 family equaled & in some ways surpassed the F-15/-18 families in performance:

Antonov is dead and Ukrainian

An-72s were never designed or expected to operate from a carrier...

— With regard to the development of the project, the MiG-35, the company plans to create its naval version?

— It is possible. Especially considering the fact that reinforced construction of the MiG-35 fully complies with the requirements for operation of the ship aircraft. In the future, upon receipt of an appropriate order, we can modify the aircraft and to ship version.

LMFS wrote:Some interesting data:

1) Tarasenko confirming the MiG-35 has been designed from the outset with a reinforced structure compatible with carrier operations:

LMFS wrote: 2) Most recent data from F-35 program offer interesting information about the cost evolution of the different versions. Please consider the recent squeeze the DoD effectively forced on Lockheed and P&W and the resulting prices, including engine & fee:
Analyzing the last table is quite interesting:
> Final prices of B version are expected to be 34% higher than CTOL and 16% higher than CATOBAR one

LMFS wrote: The question that this suggests to me is: what would happen if, instead of a less than impressive naval version we would talk about a plane which does not need such serious modifications for naval operations? What would be the extra cost and weight of a naval version? F-35 had overweight, weak landing gear, little range and bad aero for a naval fighter to fit USN requirements, and correspondingly needed intensive modifications. But for instance MiG-35 seems to be reinforced already, and Su-57 apparently has impressive STOL performance by itself so aero needs to be outstanding for carrier operations already.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Pl. see https://www.russiadefence.net/t5376p300-pla-navy-and-naval-air-force#241187
They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.  
Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.
So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.

But its planes r in the RFAF/etc. inventory, have many years of life left & could be modified &/ produced under different names.

The Chinese Y-7/MA60/-8/-9s & their variants r also based on the now obsolete An-24/-26 & An-12.

Nor did the An-24/-26, but China is now working on AWACS variant based on it:

The Il-112/-114s r not proven yet & may not be produced in large #s.

Even if their future tankers, CODs & AWACS use CATOBAR, it'll be less often than with also CTOL fighters, resulting in less wear & tear, maintenance needed, & casualties.

They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.

Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.

So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.

Interesting that after epic failure of MiG-29k in India and Russia they decided to even change this name... to have any chances with reworked platform. I hope they get some expeort contracts.

Why Russian MoD decided for VSTOL approach? looks that VSTOL capability is needed after all. All western navies adopted VSTOL but France. China recently joined VSTOL club working on own fighter this class.

Japan - welcome a new member of an exclusive VSTOL club      

Japan eyes introduction of multipurpose aircraft ‘mother ship’ and purchase of extra 100 F-35 jets

Japan is considering transforming a helicopter destroyer into an aircraft carrier that can accommodate fighter jets, a government source said Tuesday, in what could be seen as a departure from the country’s strictly defense-oriented policy under its pacifist Constitution.

The remodeling of the helicopter carrier Izumo, operated by Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force, is seen as indispensable if the country is to beef up its defense capabilities in the face of China’s maritime assertiveness in the waters around the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.

The government plans to state its policy of renovating a destroyer so it can carry fighter jets in the defense buildup guidelines to be updated next month, the source said.

Currently the MSDF’s 19,500-ton Izumo is 248-meters long and can carry up to 14 helicopters.

Under the war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution, Japan has maintained that it cannot possess attack aircraft carriers as it is only allowed to use force for self-defense.

However, Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya appeared positive Tuesday about upgrading Izumo to serve as an aircraft carrier.

“It’s desirable that it will be used for as many purposes as possible,” he said at a news conference.

If remodeled, the Izumo would likely carry F-35B stealth jet fighters, which are capable of conducting short-range and vertical take-off and landing.

Asked if the ministry will introduce F-35Bs or not, Iwaya said it is “now conducting studies” on that option.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which wants to revise the country’s pacifist Constitution, has called for an upgrade of the Izumo to use it as an aircraft carrier.

The LDP referred to such an aircraft carrier as a “multipurpose mother ship” in its report compiled in May.

Separately on Tuesday, the Nikkei business newspaper reported that the government is preparing to order another 100 F-35 fighters from the U.S. to replace some of its aging F-15s, citing unnamed sources.

A single F-35 costs more than ¥10 billion, meaning the additional order would exceed ¥1 trillion. Those F-35s would include both F-35As and F-35Bs, the Nikkei reported.

Currently, the Air-Self Defense Forces plans to procure 42 F-35As by fiscal 2024.

The government is now mulling the procurement plan partly because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for Tokyo to buy more American defense equipment, the Nikkei reported.

At present, Japan deploys about 200 F-15s, roughly half of which cannot be upgraded, according to the newspaper.

Meanwhile the government is set to carefully decide the details of “the mother ship,” including the purposes of its operations and its aircraft carrying capacity at ordinary times, so as to avoid it being regarded as an attack aircraft carrier, which exceeds the scope of Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented policy, sources said.

The carrier needs to have a deck resistant to the high heat caused by the takeoffs and landings of such fighters.

The government’s current view is that Japan is not allowed to possess attack aircraft carriers under the country’s pacifist Constitution.

The country needs to be assured that the envisaged carrier will operate within the range of its defense-oriented policy, a senior official of Komeito, the LDP’s junior coalition partner, said.

LMFS wrote:STVOL make sense for amphibious assault ships and STOBAR or CATOBAR for carriers, is there any mystery in this?

The proposal to develop STOVL together with China could actually make some sense in order to go from impracticable amount of units to hopefully some 100-150 of them.

1) extra dead mass? VSTOL costs 6% extra weight

2) internal sooooo small. Yes MiG carries  7,5% more fuel internally!!!

3) Combat radius - tiny. YES - MiG-29k has 14% longer radius

4] Radar capabilities/ avionics    - damn same performance !  

GarryB wrote:

They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.  

China has money to burn... who knows why they would spend money on both... why is the Russian Navy investing in both?

GB wrote:

Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.

Small carriers are not that much cheaper than big carriers... in the case of a US super carrier the air component will cost more than the ship even though the ship is enormously expensive and the high attrition rate of the F-35s is going to sink their navy...

GB wrote:

So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.

STOVL 5th gen fighter will cost more than two 80K ton CVNs... why do you think this is cost effective?

GB wrote:Small carriers might be cheaper but are useless too... if you are going away from Russian shores you wont be going with Corvettes for obvious reasons.... so why would you take a corvette carrier? The whole point of a carrier is to bring air power with you where ever you go...

GB wrote:
Ahhh.... because it is cheaper... right... but the fighters that operate from that helipad are enormously expensive... and no AWACS platform so you are screwed.... you might as well take a couple of extra cruisers with three helicopters each and use that capacity instead of a carrier... one anti sub helo and two Ka-52Ks per cruiser... three cruisers therefore equals 6 "fighters" which will be plenty according to some...

GB wrote:

Interesting that after epic failure of MiG-29k in India and Russia they decided to even change this name... to have any chances with reworked platform. I hope they get some expeort contracts.

Funny, the Indians didn't like the AKM either and developed the INSAS... now they are looking at buying AK-103s... which is an upgraded AKM.

GB wrote:Why Russian MoD decided for VSTOL approach? looks that VSTOL capability is needed after all. All western navies adopted VSTOL but France. China recently joined VSTOL club working on own fighter this class.

They also have lots of MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft in their inventory... are you suggesting they upgrade them and use them on their carriers too?

For a new requirement like a modern light AWACS platform that can operate from an aircraft carrier, it makes sense to design the new aircraft from scratch using new materials and new engines and new systems...

..do you think that is because China has better options?
Or do you think it is because the airframe they are basing it on is the closest they have available to them to fit the role?

Gunshipdemocracy wrote:IMHO very unlikely, why Russian would share its perhaps most modern fighter with china?

(why not Su-57 based)

Why VSTOL is so bad? topto tops MiG-29k (if can fly) vs 30 years old Yak design 9current will be light years better)

hoom wrote:On the question of Su-57 landing on a CV without special gear:

Pull a cobra & just drop on the deck at the end.

They've been having some fun with the idea over at Balancer

Is it possible with full/partial load of missiles to land safely using Cobra?

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

Cheap rocket boosters with both sides nozzles for shortening take off and landing to lock in 1 missile pilon per side.

Less crazy idea, enlarge kuznetsov

Even less crazy idea, build a decent nuclear takr

Cheap rocket boosters with both sides nozzles for shortening take off and landing to lock in 1 missile pilon per side.