Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

According to Yefim Gordon's Red Star 36 book on the Yak VTOLs the Yak-41 was also able to carry one Kh-31 / Kh-35 on the centreline. There is ample space available between the lift engines and the main engine, but it may well be that this configuration was only possible in STOL mode? Both the Kh-31 and Kh-35 were also compatible with all 4 the underwing pylons.

Very skeptical of that, even in STO mode with a rolling takeoff the lift jet engines are used and their AB engines direct a lot of heat downwards that means anything on the centreline pylon would be subjected to excessive heat, plus the Yak does not have an arrester hook so all landings are done vertically or conventionally on a full sized runway.

I have a video of the 1992 Farnborough airshow where the commentator joked that the Yak was only allowed to take off conventionally and land conventionally because it was destroying the runway... they hovered of course, but did not land or take off vertically.

Conventional landings on a carrier are not possible and a vertical landing means coming in from behind the carrier slightly faster than the carrier is moving and when it gets to its landing spot its main engine is deflected forwards to slow down to match the forward speed of the carrier so it can then reduce thrust and land, which means that huge powerful jet engine blowing hot air a little forward to stop the aircraft moving forward which would also effect any item or equipment on any centreline pylon.

I find AWACS a little strange. Hey let's have an air war. Now let me get this clumsy slow prop plane in the air first.

The value of being able to see in every direction 360 degrees continuously from sea level up to any altitude you like out to 500-600km or more is incredibly valuable to any ship operating at sea... even if it can only see stealthy threats at 50km that would still be enough warning to do something about it... the alternative is dangerous stuff appearing at the horizon... you might not even have time to turn critical defence systems on to defend yourself.

Wouldn't the AWACs plane be the ultimate BVR target right away ?

If it was in the middle of nowhere I would agree, but this AWACS aircraft would be operating above the equivalent of about 6 S-500 batteries and about 40-50 S-400 batteries and about the same number of S-350 batteries, and perhaps 100 TOR batteries and maybe 40 Pantsir systems... not to mention perhaps 24 Su-57 fighter aircraft and perhaps another 36 MiG-35 aircraft, as well as guns from 30mm and 57mm right up to 130mm and 152mm guns all dedicated to shooting planes and aircraft and missiles down.

By the time this carrier is ready and these planes get to fly they should already have a range of dedicated anti missile mini missiles to protect land based convoys from Rocket and Artillery shell attack... designed to be carried in enormous numbers... such weapons could be loaded into vertical launchers on the back of an AWACS aircraft with hundreds of missiles ready to launch. With a 3kg warhead with very precise ARH guidance for direct hits on target to destroy artillery shells and artillery rockets and a range of maybe 2-3km, they would be ideal for shooting down incoming Meteors and other AAMs and heavy long range SAMs...

That's why I personally prefer AEW types that can transfer data in real time to a ground/sea based command center. A loss of such a system would at least not be as costly in human terms. AWACS aircraft can have a highly specialized crew of up to about 30 on board. UAV's would be perfect for this type of mission.

I prefer the AWACS types because AEW would be sending enormous volumes of data to the command centre, and of course the command centre would need to send out its own commands as the data it collects it determines what actions need to be taken so it needs to direct aircraft and ships and other platforms based on the information it receives.

With an AWACS those communications wont be a big deal because it is already scanning 360 degrees with powerful radar signals so the enemy are going to know where it is anyway.

With AEW the air platform is scanning with radar but the surface command vessel will also be transmitting commands to aircraft and ships etc too.

One interesting factor in using Airships for AWACS roles could be that if you used a tether the airship could operate 24/7 but also fibre optic cables in the tether could allow very high speed secure communications and orders could be directed from the airship inside encoded radar signals... so as it is scanning the airspace it could also be issuing orders and sharing data at the same time... attaching the airship to a cruiser down to a corvette would allow electrical power to be transmitted up the tether too so the airship could simply be very basic... large radar antennas and station keeping electric motors and fuel cells to cycle between hydrogen lifting gas and water ballast... it could even be unmanned.

In any case made of carbon fibre and fire proof light fabrics you could purge the airspace between the hydrogen lifting bags with nitrogen so fire would be unlikely and various anti fire systems that suffocate fires could be installed too, which would make it rather difficult to bring down. An airship maybe 100m long would have enormous internal volume and any missile that hit it... like Meteor or anything else would struggle to destroy enough hydrogen bags to make it do much more than descend. You could fit the airship with protected deflated hydrogen bags so if existing bags get damaged and leak the system could suck out the remaining hydrogen before it escapes and put it through the fuel cells to generate electricity. Vacuum units in the top of the outer shell could suck up any hydrogen released that floats up to the internal nitrogen filled space and pump that through the fuel cells to generate electricity and water and heat... the damaged hydrogen bags with their hydrogen removed will then not be used again and spare backup hydrogen bags can be filled to make up for lost lift from all the bags damaged and now emptied by the system and also the hydrogen in the top of the airship that escaped during the impact of the missile.

What I am saying is that even if hit by a missile an airship AEW platform is not going to crash in a huge ball of fire... at worst the lost lift from the damaged hydrogen bags will make it descend and eventually land on the water surface... a few Ka-31s could already have been launched to take its place... but honestly a Meteors chance of reaching the Airship are low because S-350s and S-400s would have shot it down well before it got near the AWACS because the AWACS and the ships below would have detected it very early on...

The American way isn't the only way!
Absent a CATOBAR CV/N, they could modify a few Be-12s /42 with a Wedgetail-like blade for the AWACS role. A supply ship in the CBG would be its tender. Also, extra Ka-31s could be embarked on a UDK/converted tanker/bulk carrier(s) for extra coverage to make up for any possible gaps in stormy weather,etc.
OTH, in most areas the VMF CV/Ns, not to mention UDK/LHAs would operate, they'll be in range of land based A-50/100s deployed from Russian or allied airfields.

That is an important point... amphibious aircraft could play a role... and it would be interesting to look at their collected data to see how often an A-40 would not be useful because of the sea state. (The A-40 albatross would be the best option in my opinion... perhaps with PD-16 engines replacing its four engines normally used...)

The Russians never rely on one system only to defend their tanks... they use EO systems like Shtora, and ERA and APS and Nakidka and anything else they can think of to keep their tanks safe, so why wouldn't the navy go for options.

An advantage of the A-40 as an AWACS aircraft is that it is a good sized aircraft and could be used by countries that don't have aircraft carriers.

Being able to land on the water could enable it to use dipping antenna to communicate with submarines as well.

Of course an airship could be designed to land on the water surface and act like a ship in very heavy wind conditions, but I suspect climbing to enormous altitudes and just operating above the weather would be the best solution... operating at 15-20km altitude would make it safe from storms... being able to operate at even higher altitudes might allow it to accelerate transit speeds to using the trade winds to move very fast if needed.

You could design the top surface of an airship to be flat and relatively durable to allow drones to operate from its top surface too.

The Russian designers are very innovative... I am interested to see what they come up with.

The A-40 albatross would be the best option in my opinion... perhaps with PD-16 engines replacing its four engines normally used..

no, it has only 2 engines.
As mentioned before, future tilt-rotors could be used as AWACS too. Another option is to buy AG600s or Y-7s/9s & modify them, since their An-12s r at the end of their lifes & can't fly for much longer.

GarryB wrote:

According to Yefim Gordon's Red Star 36 book on the Yak VTOLs the Yak-41 was also able to carry one Kh-31 / Kh-35 on the centreline. There is ample space available between the lift engines and the main engine, but it may well be that this configuration was only possible in STOL mode? Both the Kh-31 and Kh-35 were also compatible with all 4 the underwing pylons.

Very skeptical of that, even in STO mode with a rolling takeoff the lift jet engines are used and their AB engines direct a lot of heat downwards that means anything on the centreline pylon would be subjected to excessive heat, plus the Yak does not have an arrester hook so all landings are done vertically or conventionally on a full sized runway.

I have a video of the 1992 Farnborough airshow where the commentator joked that the Yak was only allowed to take off conventionally and land conventionally because it was destroying the runway... they hovered of course, but did not land or take off vertically.

Conventional landings on a carrier are not possible and a vertical landing means coming in from behind the carrier slightly faster than the carrier is moving and when it gets to its landing spot its main engine is deflected forwards to slow down to match the forward speed of the carrier so it can then reduce thrust and land, which means that huge powerful jet engine blowing hot air a little forward to stop the aircraft moving forward which would also effect any item or equipment on any centreline pylon.

Why would the English want to say something nice about a Russian VTOL fighter aircraft?

Not only can the Yak-41 carry these missiles on the center line but also a 2500 liter fuel tank so I am sure the Soviets considered the safety aspect of it.

Also - being capable of STOL operations it won't need any arrester hook.

Anyway excellent video of a Harrier Gr9 attempting a conventional landing...

Nice pic as well

Great video of the Yak38U at Maks 1995. At 03:26 you can see it making a vertical landing as it would do on a moving ship, but this time on a normal landing strip without causing any obvious damage to it in doing so.

no, it has only 2 engines.

The A-40 has four engines... two external D-30s at about 12 tons thrust each, and two more booster engines used during takeoff at about 2 tons thrust each.

This was because of a lack of a more powerful engine at the time.

Why would the English want to say something nice about a Russian VTOL fighter aircraft?

In 1992 the cold war was over, Germany was one country again and Russia was irrelevant... the Russians had just sent Helen Sharman into space so they were trying to be nice...

Not only can the Yak-41 carry these missiles on the center line but also a 2500 liter fuel tank so I am sure the Soviets considered the safety aspect of it.

Any photos of such things fitted?

Also - being capable of STOL operations it won't need any arrester hook.

A problem with either of the lift jets would make recovery impossible without a tail hook...

Anyway excellent video of a Harrier Gr9 attempting a conventional landing...

The engine noise suggests and the fact that his nose breaks off suggests he realises his descent rate is too high and powers up the engine but still hits the ground too hard.

That doesn't mean it can't land conventionally... it means this guy has not practised conventional landings enough to fly me anywhere.

Great video of the Yak38U at Maks 1995. At 03:26 you can see it making a vertical landing as it would do on a moving ship, but this time on a normal landing strip without causing any obvious damage to it in doing so.

The Yak-38U does not have a near 20 ton thrust main engine with afterburner blowing hot gas directly down during landings and also many Soviet runways are concrete and not asphalt.

At 03:26 you can see it making a vertical landing as it would do on a moving ship, but this time on a normal landing strip without causing any obvious damage to it in doing so.

The forward speed that aircraft landed at at the onscreen time of 3:26 would be way to high for landing on a ship that was not running at full speed.

Mir wrote:Why would the English want to say something nice about a Russian VTOL fighter aircraft?

GarryB wrote:In 1992 the cold war was over, Germany was one country again and Russia was irrelevant... the Russians had just sent Helen Sharman into space so they were trying to be nice...

Well I actually meant it as a bit of a joke but to be honest the Yak-38 was a direct competitor to the Harrier - so again why would they want to say something nice about the only other competitor. The Russians made the mistake by thinking the Cold War was over and that they would be able to compete with the west on a level playing field. In your fukin dreams mister Ruskie!

Also the Yak-38 was brought to Farnborough as a novelty. Yak had absolutely no intention to market the Yak-38. All eyes were on the Yak-41 (Yak-141) though and it made a huge impression on aviation enthusiasts/pros/press. I think I still have an article from Air International on the Yak-41 and they were amazed!

Mir wrote:Not only can the Yak-41 carry these missiles on the center line but also a 2500 liter fuel tank so I am sure the Soviets considered the safety aspect of it.

Correction: 2000 liters

GarryB wrote:Any photos of such things fitted?

Probably still classified? The only pictures of the Yak-41 with any loadout was the R-27/R73 mix under the wing pylons, but it is known that both the Kh-31 and the Kh-35 would also be part of the missile armament. Interesting thing is at that time the ASM version of the Kh-35 did not even exist but it was already slated for the Yak-41! One should also consider that there were only two flying prototypes at the time so the aircraft was far from fully developed.

GarryB wrote:A problem with either of the lift jets would make recovery impossible without a tail hook...

Well the Harrier has the same issue - so I guess ejection is the only option if the lift jets fail >>

GarryB wrote:The Yak-38U does not have a near 20 ton thrust main engine with afterburner blowing hot gas directly down during landings and also many Soviet runways are concrete and not asphalt.

Well they did apply special tiles to the Kiev for protection...

GarryB wrote:The forward speed that aircraft landed at at the onscreen time of 3:26 would be way to high for landing on a ship that was not running at full speed.

The forward speed at 03:26 is not even 10 knots in my opinion?

I found the article on the Yak-41 (aka Yak-141) in my copy of Air International of December 1992.

Here they also state the obvious that the flying sample of the Yak-41 on display during Farnborough 1992 was the very first flying sample. This prototype was mainly used for development of the fly-by-wire system and the integrated engine controls. The second flying prototype was a far more advanced development aircraft which included the early stages of weapon systems testing.

In the same article they also confirm the following:

Provision is also made, presumably only for STOL operations, for a centre-line under fuselage weapons or 440 Imp gal (2000L) conformal fuel -tank pylon

See my earlier post 972 above >>

Mir wrote:According to Yefim Gordon's Red Star 36 book on the Yak VTOLs the Yak-41 was also able to carry one Kh-31 / Kh-35 on the centreline. There is ample space available between the lift engines and the main engine, but it may well be that this configuration was only possible in STOL mode? Both the Kh-31 and Kh-35 were also compatible with all 4 the underwing pylons.

Interesting thing is at that time the ASM version of the Kh-35 did not even exist but it was already slated for the Yak-41! One should also consider that there were only two flying prototypes at the time so the aircraft was far from fully developed.

That is the problem... there are plenty of photos of the Su-33 with air launched Sunburn missiles on the centreline pylon for decades... have not ever seen one carried operationally or shown to actually be tested or operational.

Even the Kinzhal at about 3.8 tons is significantly lighter than the 4.5 ton Moskit.

Well the Harrier has the same issue - so I guess ejection is the only option if the lift jets fail >>

Which just makes them more fragile and less desirable as a weapon on war.

Well they did apply special tiles to the Kiev for protection...

The Yak-41 has a 2 minute 30 second limit in the hover because of the main engine in full AB tends to heat up the thrust vectoring nozzle.

Interestingly the F-35 who bought the design the limit is 1 minute 30 seconds (ie 90 seconds).

The forward speed at 03:26 is not even 10 knots in my opinion?

The roll out afterwards was no 10 metres though.

In the same article they also confirm the following:

Provision was made does not equal fitted and tested and operational and in serial production.

The belly of the aircraft was a complex array of ramps and air dams to control the air flow and stop hot exhaust gas flowing forwards towards any major air intakes to prevent stalls... adding ordinance or fuel tanks to the belly position would complicate matters enormously and make the use of external fuel tanks problematic to be nice.

If they could come up with a brand new design that solves the issues... precise thrust vector control nozzles should mean they don't need the high pressure air bleed to the wingtips and the tail tip and the nose of the aircraft for handling in the hover.... that saves weight and battle damage fragility... if they could overcome the issue if hot air intake stalls by placing the engines where they can operate in vertical take off and normal flight and not be dead weight then I think the design would be rather more practical.

Half of the problem is wanting a supersonic fighter... making it subsonic means you can have a bigger higher lift wing that creates more lift with better payload and fuel capacity and better flight performance... even a forward swept wing would be useful to improve subsonic flight performance while remaining small and low drag...

A forward swept wing with wingtip electric jet engines mounted forward of the cg eliminating the need for other forward mounted lift engines, you could move the main engine back and create a lot more internal volume for internal fuel and also internal weapons.

Fully articulated thrust vector nozzles would allow STOL or vertical landings.... but rather than just folding wings I would think a body design that can rotate the wings upwards as part of its design to reduce space required... remember the Kamovs are tall so if you are going to have tall hangars on ships and carriers then complete aircraft folding wings makes sense because there would be room.

The lift fan of the F-35 only works when the fan itself is enormous which makes it take up too much internal space and makes the aircraft chunky.

Look at the Chinese version if the F-35... no lift fan body shape and two smaller more compact engines, probably delivering the same or more thrust than the F-35s huge single engine.

GarryB wrote:

That is the problem... there are plenty of photos of the Su-33 with air launched Sunburn missiles on the centreline pylon for decades... have not ever seen one carried operationally or shown to actually be tested or operational.

Even the Kinzhal at about 3.8 tons is significantly lighter than the 4.5 ton Moskit.

By the same token we have been told that the Kh-15 can be carried internally by the Tu-160 but there is no photographic evidence of this actually being the case. Must be bollox then  

The 1992 Farnborough airshow was a major turning point for the Russian aviation industry with many unknowns revealed including the Yak-41. The  An-124 Ruslan was turned into a giant briefing room where each of the OKB's pitched their products to anyone wanting to know. All this info on the Yak-41 came directly from the source - the Yak OKB. This is also where the very well known Yefim Gordon gets his info on Russian/Soviet aircraft from.

It was also during this show that the Tu-22M3 was demonstrated in the west for the first time. Little did they know that the Kh-15 is a part of the internal weapons fit! There are likely many secrets we still don't know but things like the weapons fit on the Yak-41 was revealed - even weapons like the Kh-35 and R-77 that wasn't quite in Russian service or existing at the time.

As far as the Moskit goes - perhaps not the best option but I am pretty sure it was not a prank.

Mir wrote:The forward speed at 03:26 is not even 10 knots in my opinion?

Confused myself with the on screen clock  
Actual time on the video is 04:46

GarryB wrote:The roll out afterwards was no 10 metres though.

The roll afterwards was actually taxing off the runway when the display routine was finished.  

Anyway here is some excellent and very rare footage of the Yak-38 in action >>

PS - Pay particular attention how they come in to land on a forward moving ship.

GarryB wrote: The belly of the aircraft was a complex array of ramps and air dams to control the air flow and stop hot exhaust gas flowing forwards towards any major air intakes to prevent stalls... adding ordinance or fuel tanks to the belly position would complicate matters enormously and make the use of external fuel tanks problematic to be nice.

From that very same Air International magazine but in a different article Roy Braybook commented as follows:

Never in my life have I seen so much flat metal on an aircraft (Yak-141).

Here is an almost equally rare and superb video on the Yak-41 >>

GarryB wrote:Provision was made does not equal fitted and tested and operational and in serial production.

As I've mentioned before the Yak-41 was still under development at the time, but the weapons loadout was obviously already determined long before any flight testing commenced. You design a combat aircraft around it's projected weapon and avionic systems - not the other way around.

Imagine the Yak designers making a couple of phone calls when admiring their newly completed Yak-41 prototype asking around for what possible armament and radar could fit in and around the fuselage!    

No matter what you design these things are determined on the drawing board already mate!

GarryB wrote: Half of the problem is wanting a supersonic fighter... making it subsonic means you can have a bigger higher lift wing that creates more lift with better payload and fuel capacity and better flight performance...

Funny thing is the supersonic Yak-41 has a much larger wing/lift area than the subsonic Harrier  

By the same token we have been told that the Kh-15 can be carried internally by the Tu-160 but there is no photographic evidence of this actually being the case. Must be bollox then

Kh-15 is a short range attack missile used for clearing air defences (SAMS and fighter aircraft) in the path of strategic bombers, there is photographic evidence of them being fitted to Tu-22M3s and it makes sense for the Bear and the Blackjack to also use such weapons to complete their assigned missions.

All three are operational aircraft in serial production.

They made how many Yak-41s?

All this info on the Yak-41 came directly from the source - the Yak OKB. This is also where the very well known Yefim Gordon gets his info on Russian/Soviet aircraft from.

Except it was still in development and most of the specs were unproven.

As far as the Moskit goes - perhaps not the best option but I am pretty sure it was not a prank.

I am sure Sukhoi wanted to adapt it to the Su-33, the pylon that carried the missile had all sorts of extra bits to prevent damage to the aircraft during release... but there was no way the Su-33 could get airborne from a carrier with such a load so I suspect integration was never funded.

This was the mid 1990s and not long after they showed the Yakhont which is half the weight but with similar performance... greatly increased range ... but AFAIK that was never integrated either.

Confused myself with the on screen clock Smile
Actual time on the video is 04:46

Yeah, I worked that out... it appears to me to be moving forward with significant momentum...

No matter what you design these things are determined on the drawing board already mate!

Of course they are, and if that was all that was needed then they could go straight from the drawing board to serial production, but designing something so it should work and actually getting it to work are not the same things.

Funny thing is the supersonic Yak-41 has a much larger wing/lift area than the subsonic Harrier

The harriers empty weight is about 5.5 tons.... the Yak is almost 20 tons at MTOW.

Wing area does not mean much if it is a thin low lift low drag profile supersonic wing... when I said changing the Yak to a bigger higher lift wing I didn't just mean increase the wing area, I meant increase the lifting performance, which increases drag which would be terrible for a supersonic design.

GarryB wrote:They made how many Yak-41s?

How is it that you periodically forget about the bad experience the Soviets and the Russians had during the 90's - or is it more a matter of convenience?

This is very common knowledge but let me remind you that the Soviet Union dissolved and with that funding for the military practically stopped. Many promising projects came to an abrupt halt and the Navy was the hardest hit by far. This included the Yak-41 and not to mention the aircraft carriers that were still under construction at the time! Fortunately some of these projects got started again after decades of  stagnation. This include fighter aircraft like the Su-27M that became the Su-35, the Mig-29M that finally morphed into the Mig-35 thirty years later! Same thing for the Mig-31BM that was a watered down version of the Mig-31M - to mention a few.

Just before the demise of the Soviet Union tooling was already underway at the Smolensk plant for production of a small batch of Yak-41M's for the Navy - so they were very serious about getting the Yak-41 into service for the Kiev as well as the then Tbilisi class carriers. We all know what happened to the carriers!

Incidentally the Yak-41M was much closer to a 5th gen and incorporated many stealth features.

GarryB wrote:Except it was still in development and most of the specs were unproven.

You should read more. The design specs in terms of speed was already achieved at a very early stage of the development when the test pilot reached speeds in access of Mach 1.7 to Mach1.8. This was also the time when he broke 12 time-to-height records for VTOL aircraft - clearly demonstrating the Yak's superiority over the Harrier II's.

It is actually quite hilarious as to what lengths you will go to defend the British Harrier despite the fact that the Yak-41 is vastly superior to the latest Harrier II's. Pretty much the same as Isos's fetish with the Rafale.

In the west the Yak-38 was also scoffed at as inferior to the Harrier but in many ways the Yak-38 was equal to or even superior to the early gen Harrier. They even went so far as to claim a much higher attrition rate (39 losses) for the Yak-38's and that only 100 were built. It turned out 231 were built which makes quite a big difference to the "high" attrition rate!  

India for an example lost 16 out of 31 Sea Harriers that also claimed the lives of 7 pilots over a period of two decades.

Edit: Got some new figures on Yak-38 accidents and losses >>

There were 37 accidents with 14 total hull losses and 5 fatalities. There were on average about 115 Yak-38's in squadron service.

Mir wrote:No matter what you design these things are determined on the drawing board already mate!

GarryB wrote:Of course they are, and if that was all that was needed then they could go straight from the drawing board to serial production, but designing something so it should work and actually getting it to work are not the same things.

For sure a lot of testing needs to be done before any production. The point is, long before any metal is cast they know exactly what kind of systems will be integrated into the design, and that includes weapon systems. In fact after the design gets finalized on the drawing board they start with a wooden mock-up and that also includes mock-ups of the actual weapon's fit.

Here is a sample of such a wooden mock-up. Perhaps you can identify the aircraft and the missile fitted under the wing?  >>

GarryB wrote: I didn't just mean increase the wing area, I meant increase the lifting performance, which increases drag which would be terrible for a supersonic design.

VTOL aircraft is all about lifting performance - no matter if it is sub-or supersonic. All 12 records set by the Yak-41 is time-to-hight records previously held by the Harrier II.

I am sure Sukhoi wanted to adapt it to the Su-33, the pylon that carried the missile had all sorts of extra bits to prevent damage to the aircraft during release... but there was no way the Su-33 could get airborne from a carrier with such a load so I suspect integration was never funded.

..it can be used ..in naval aviation (Su-33, Su-27, Su-32FN [Su-34]). On the Su-27K (Su-33) shipborne aircraft, one 3M80 missile can be placed under the fuselage between the engine nacelles.
IMO, if they really wanted, with reduced AAM &/ fuel load, it could be done.
Btw, carrier-based J-15 fired YJ-83K anti ship missile, 2 would be carried:
https://youtu.be/uXUs3X0xBOM?t=25

How is it that you periodically forget about the bad experience the Soviets and the Russians had during the 90's - or is it more a matter of convenience?

I don't... Yak-41 was cancelled in August 1991.

Just before the demise of the Soviet Union tooling was already underway at the Smolensk plant for production of a small batch of Yak-41M's for the Navy - so they were very serious about getting the Yak-41 into service for the Kiev as well as the then Tbilisi class carriers. We all know what happened to the carriers!

The tooling was never set up for production because they knew it was going to be cancelled before it was cancelled.

Incidentally the Yak-41M was much closer to a 5th gen and incorporated many stealth features.

The Yak-41M had zero stealth, it was boxy and had no stealth shaping... its air intakes were the opposite of stealthy and gave an excellent view of the front of the engine.

This was also the time when he broke 12 time-to-height records for VTOL aircraft - clearly demonstrating the Yak's superiority over the Harrier II's.

Yes, because world records are important in a military platform... all the most successful military weapons are record holders...

It is actually quite hilarious as to what lengths you will go to defend the British Harrier despite the fact that the Yak-41 is vastly superior to the latest Harrier II's. Pretty much the same as Isos's fetish with the Rafale.

I think VSTOL fighter aircraft are stupid... they are expensive and complex and difficult to get right... they are best for the low fighter in a low high fighter arrangement so they don't need long range and they don't need super high speed, but the core of their problem is that they are intended to allow for smaller aircraft carriers which makes the carriers themselves useless.

Small carriers and VSTOL fighters are expensive for what they are, and you are much better going for larger carriers that better support the ships they operate with... a MiG-35 is better than an upgraded Yak-41 could ever be and it is already ready so effort spent developing something they already have is a total waste of funds.

You can argue that the new VSTOL fighter will be a generation ahead of the MiG-35, but so will the fifth gen conventional light carrier fighter MiG are developing too.

Nobody pisses away money trying to make a workable VSTOL strategic bomber... why piss away money on a VSTOL fighter because the best possible payoff will be that some people can then argue that helicopter carrier sized ships are all you need to protect your fleet which is total bullshit.

British experience in the Falklands war showed air power was important and their lack of decent fighters and decent AWACS led to the loss of quite a few ships... add the cost of those ships and add the money they pissed away on the Harrier and their little token carriers and they easily could have kept their older ships with Phantoms and Buccaneers... which would have transformed the conflict completely.

Sparrows, or in this case Sky Flash missiles were ordinary, but they could have fired at Argentine aircraft from safe distances and totally mauled the enemy ground forces...

The carrier and their AWACS aircraft could operate over the islands so no sneak attacks using the radar shadow of the islands for cover.

The Argentine pilots were very heroic and showed great skill but with Phantoms and BVR missiles and AWACS they would have been like any country fighting HATO the last few decades... they don't make it a fair fight.

The Harrier is about the best example of a VSTOL fighter that you could manage in my opinion, but ultimately I see it as a dead end in terms of technology until electric jet engines can take over and the airflows are cold air.

They even went so far as to claim a much higher attrition rate (39 losses) for the Yak-38's and that only 100 were built. It turned out 231 were built which makes quite a big difference to the "high" attrition rate!

The Yak-38 and Yak-38M were not all bad... the auto ejection system probably cost a few extra planes but greatly reduced the number of pilots and crew killed so it was worth it.

The Harrier went to war several times... the Yak was tested in ground support roles in Afghanistan... not really the same.

India for an example lost 16 out of 31 Sea Harriers that also claimed the lives of 7 pilots over a period of two decades.

Edit: Got some new figures on Yak-38 accidents and losses >>

There were 37 accidents with 14 total hull losses and 5 fatalities. There were on average about 115 Yak-38's in squadron service.

Yeah, you are comparing cat shit with dog shit though because VSTOL fighters are fragile and dangerous to the ground.

I rather suspect they likely learned a bit about engine nozzle thrust vectoring technology for high thrust jet engines, and autopilots and other safety systems... but a lot of time and money was spent chasing a mirage.

Here is a sample of such a wooden mock-up. Perhaps you can identify the aircraft and the missile fitted under the wing? >>

The intake looks like a T-4, which was going to be a recon bomber type so I would guess the missile is a Kh-22 or something similar.

VTOL aircraft is all about lifting performance - no matter if it is sub-or supersonic.

VTOL are all about engine power, and to be supersonic lift is not as important as drag... thin profile low drag wings are a must to fly supersonically.

..it can be used ..in naval aviation (Su-33, Su-27, Su-32FN [Su-34]). On the Su-27K (Su-33) shipborne aircraft, one 3M80 missile can be placed under the fuselage between the engine nacelles.

There are also photos of it mounted on the aircraft... but AFAIK it was never actually integrated... the Su-33 doesn't need to carry a Moskit when the ship it operates from carries Granit.

Btw, carrier-based J-15 fired YJ-83K anti ship missile, 2 would be carried:

Might want to check those specs because that is rather small compared with the 4.5 ton almost 10 metre long Moskit.

They would not bother integrating the Moskit now because Onyx and Zircon are less than half that weight and faster and with better flight range.