LMFS wrote:You stick to your fetish comparisons which do not make much sense actually. F-35 is a bomb truck so it has good payload and fuel capacity, but B version much less than A and C ones. Mig-29 is way lighter, has a main AD role with added strike capability not the other way around as the F-35. Accordingly, it has way better dynamical parameters than the F-35, you should compare those too and not only payload which obviously benefits the bomb truck.GunshipDemocracy wrote:Very true, of course depending what is a modest payload. MiG-29k has 4,500kg payload, MiG-35 has 6,000kg. This is less than actual F-35B.
Well, wasnt it you who complained about intrinsically small VSTOL payload, Sir? As for F-35. F35B wasn't built to energy-maneuverability theory, yet still it is a fighter.
nd can kill MiG-29k with ease.
Check its radar + RCS vs MiG-29ks one.
LMFS wrote:If you remember there were discussions about LHDs and carriers. They are both in the naval strategy, and have been discussed separately, including statements about Priboy, Lavina and then opting for multifunctional vessels. Maybe all carriers and LHDs have been joined now? Maybe, but last news is that RuN will take a decision regarding their carriers in 2019 after review of the design proposals. To me this last news looks fully compatible with LHDs/LHAs with more or less amphibious or air wing weight like America class. Which makes full sense by the way.
I didnt say Rakhmanov had stated this was the chosen model. We'll live to see. Spring 2019 should bring results. But he clearly stated: one hull and 4 functions of which one is an aircraft carrier. Read again if you dont believe.
LMFS wrote:Naval strategy begs to differ, but we can all have our own opinions and clashes with reality at will.BTW Im not sure what do you mean by carrier to cover? VSTOL one will be the only carrier fighter and ships it is going to be based on likely only carriers in navy.
I look forward to listen to you theory because no practice you have. And what your naval strategy says about fighting missions against 10:1? or 3:1?
US alone has 1000 deck fighters. No sane commander is going to slay its troops fighting against them from one CV.
Logic says you attack carriers instead of fighters. You first use stand off weapons like 1,500km GZUR and or Kh-50. VSTOL fighters with radius ~1000km are more than enough for this purpose. All you can do is locally try to defend own ships. At most.
BTW 1000km is still better by 20% then MiG-29k.
LMFS wrote:Izd. 30 is no AL-41, is a clean sheet design but I understand, it would be thrust enough for a plane between JAS-39 and maybe F-16 considering extra weight of weapons bays, avionics, LO and vertical lift HW. Remind nevertheless that JAS-39 has an engine in the class of the F-404 or RD-93, not of the AL-41. You cannot put a huge engine in a tiny plane, as you can imagine those need to be in proportion.Al-41 izd 30. is 18,000 kgf engine. It should do for J-39 Gripen sized plane. J-39s MTOW is 14,000kg, add 15% for stealth.
Izd 30 my bad you're correct.
As for Gripen, well I meant weight/size class not this particular model to be converted to VSTOL.
LMFS wrote:F-35B needs 200 m for TO at full load, more than the MiG-29K on the K despite a generational gap in engine technology... and that considering the TO weight from the short runs is very close to MTOW. Now take 5G engines and you have TO full load from less than 100 m. But Yak managed to take off with two missiles in 60 m, congratulations.2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL.
1) you compare payloads? a paragraph above you claimed that MiG poor payload does not concern. Especially that its AAM load is about 2 tons and Yak started with 2,600kgs.
2) F-35B 200m without skijump with better payload x1,5. MiG needs how long takeoff strip? 500m? 700m? with MTOW? any real data on this would help.
3) MiG-29K - is there any proof that it can even use MTOW non KUZ?, and at best can start with 4500kg payload and using 200m + skijump. Congrats. If they can of course start. Not like in Syrian campaign.
Yak could start MTOW 60m without skijump. Of course 5Gen engines will shorten this distance too. Why not 30m so 300% advantage is still valid.
LMFS wrote:QE is 300 m long. America class is 260 m long IIRC. Kirovs were what, some 300 m? Where are the space savings? All those vessels could have a 100 TO run at the bow for STOBAR planesStart here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length.
it's OK if you dotn see 300% TO strip difference. The important thing is that Russian Navy does and decided to switch from STOBAR to VSTOL. RN planners as well.
LMFS wrote:Didn't you say springboard was invented for STOVL? QE keeps it operating F-35B, as did Soviet ships. Where are the savings for TO?Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck.
skijump can decrease TO by half in case of F-35B? to 450ft in wors scenario to 300ft in good. Well not sure about how you imagine how carrier works, that there is one single runway all over the deck? So you have 195 and 4,500kg vs. 90 and 6,800kg.
BAR Landing? VSTOL and landing is again better MiG- 150m-90m arrested, F-35B - 175ft i.e. 53m rolling or vertical.
LMFS wrote:In the humble opinions of USN, PLAAN, French navy and RuN it is better to have CATOBAR or STOBAR planes. But they have not been lucky enough to be taught by you I guess.This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.
not reflecting reality,
Chinese are switching from STOBAR to CATOBAR and VSTOL.
Russians decided to switch from STOBAR to VSTOL
France? Of course then only one French carrier with 100% US CATOBAR tech. Do you suggest Russia should buy form USA? BTW France has 0.1 deck fighters of USMC and cannot afford second carrier so far.
US has military budget by order of magnitude higher then Russians yet they still use CATOBAR + VSTOL.
LMFS wrote:Show me an example of this applied to a supersonic plane and we can discussI disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed.
and what would you want to discuss? we both know nothing about it. That is the future tech, more like 25 not 7-10. nonetheless is in making now.
LMFS wrote:Bogdan specifically addressed this issue. 5G is extremely hard on the pilot, both physically and mentally due to reduced reaction times and overloads. Even better aero than 4G with new engines allow for more sustained manoeuvring, so these extreme piloting conditions are way longer than before. To the point that they already think in unmanned Su-57
or 50 years ;-) Well hard to disagree. Anyway I cannot imagine pilot fighting with constant 9g without at best being knocked out.
Bogdan should have blamed Russian energy-maneuverability doctrine not Su-57
LMFS wrote:Based on what? How do you lift the plane?Then again perhaps Su-57 will be basis for VSTOL?
Only size is against all other parameters can be for. Let's see.
based on level of unification? and not me but me Russian engineers.
Su-33 was a serious redesign of Su-27. canards, wings surface, hull, engines. Requirement was: as much as possible unify with T-10 frame. I dotn know what ill be level of unification if any . I mean with airframe not engines, avionics or weapons.
LMFS wrote:Serviceability of a plane without spares is zero, and the operator can be the only guilty party in that. Russia bought two sqd. and is using them normally, stop the nonsense.Are you saying that Indian government's audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?
You are entitled to opinion but facts are facts, I'll stick to them. You can discard them in your posts, I dont mind. Though they objectively are stay out there for anybody else. There wer eno official audit of Russian MiGs result published so how can you calim everything is OK?\
OK evidence established:
1) MiG-29k has poor serviceability in Indian Navy
2) In Syria there were 4 MiGs on Kuz, 1 lost 1 not serviceable
3) MiG-29k is neither ordered nor offered anymore
4) MiG-29k is planned to be replaced by VSTOL fighter
5) MiG-29k it doesne have any AESA radar and its radar can at best see fighter (in front) 120-130km (3-5m2 RCS)
LMFS wrote:Then you can't understand anything about aircraft, sorry.I really dot understand how does it matter how much space is taken by lift engines or ventilator as long as fighter has required radius?
Strong statement for somebody who's theories contradict with most of navy aviation planners, including Russian ones.
You know in the real world fighter (or any product) is as good as its ability to fulfill military requirements. Your personal fetishes like range or payload play really here at most secondary role. Great when they are on good level, but even with poor payload or range as MiG-29k it's OK. Navies can live with that
LMFS wrote:Could not care commenting again more funny numbers an comparisons already debunked 50 times.
again strong statement from somebody who didnt even know that Kuz has jet blast deflectors, couldn't find empty weight of MiG-29k and claimed it not as wiki says or didnt know that Yak had only 7% internal fuel less than MiG.
BTW Yak had better range with extra tanks than MiG (MiG-29k 3 vs Yak 1).
if F-35B is so bad why only Su-57 from Russian inventory is better? and Su-57 with ROAFR has only great chances of success against. I'm afraid F-35B is capable fighter in its class.
With that amount of technical arguments you must be right for sure
Former Chief of Russian AF was saying that all 4++ are not adequate to meet Vgen fighters. You claim otherwise.
he was actually also mentioning about ekhm experts
Well, its great to talk to expert better in military matters better than gen Bondaryev!!!
Kudos for your technical and military knowledge, based on years of service I presume, Sir.
Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:29 am; edited 3 times in total