LMFS wrote: Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version.
in absence of CTOL com;romising wont be needed?
At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.
Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?
It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions.
That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some. OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?
And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.
Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?
Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!
if you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels.
wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!
For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.
TAKR (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there. Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.
Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster...
Borisov: on the instructions of Putin, a prototype of a vertical takeoff aircraft
Such a machine can appear in 7-10 years, noted the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation
Подробнее на ТАСС:
Krylovsky Center developed a pre-design for a light aircraft carrier
The new project will cost, according to preliminary estimates, almost twice cheaper than the previous concept of the heavy aircraft carrier "Storm"
rom the accompanying materials it follows that the new aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft. The power plant of the ship will be a gas turbine.
Подробнее на ТАСС: