5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GarryB wrote:

They better have more resilient plans, otherwise they will never manage to get a long term development accomplished. Sensibility analyses need to be performed and a solution that fits several scenarios chosen.

If they are designing their F-35 they need to ensure that the compromises to make it STOVL do not make the STOBAR and conventional land based models are not fucked up by awkward aerodynamics that really don't suit supersonic area rule shaping...

And heavier than a F-15E BTW...
STOVL is an interesting challenge. I am trying to think of some layout in which the HW to create vertical lift is used also for horizontal lift... but area ruling suffers badly from that compromise, a fighter is a extremely demanding application so no luxuries of extra space and weight are allowed. A CTOL is always going to have an advantage, this is IMHO difficult to avoid. And commonality between CTOL or STOBAR/CATOBAR and STOVL is not really going to work. I admit the F-35 is pretty much as good as it gets in terms of STOVL, but then, for what? A carrier the size of the QE could (easily) handle STOBAR operations if equipped for it, and at the end of the day STO performance is dismal and they are (news from today in fact) already performing rolling landings. I can agree this is good for the airframe in the long term but the cost to achieve it is extreme. Unless you have a plane really capable of taking-off and landing vertically almost everywhere I am not sure the advantages above STOBAR are really worth the effort.

They will be making billions of AESA radar elements... if they can unify the design and use them in all radars in all platforms the enormous mass production will effect price and mass production issues and could make them rather affordable...

If you avoid making them because they are "too expensive" then that is what they will stay...

One of those enormous radar arrays used by S-300 and later SAM systems would use tens of thousands of emitters each... if you are making so many they become quick and cheap to make then an aircraft radar becomes not just affordable, but attractive... in fact imagine an aircraft skin made entirely of radar transcevers...

Yes, but...

They are never going to be cheap, I take it for a fact. They are high-tech material that need careful testing besides hugely expensive manufacturing equipment. And the production and assembly itself is complex as well, these are hybrid devices. IMO it is always going to be a significant cost driver. See below antenna and elements of the S-300, does not look like the elements of the N036 for instance (do not now the radar model and frequency here but just as an example). This is very purpose oriented, specific and expensive technology as far as I understand.

Hahahahahahaha.... love it... crude BVR performance...

Was just passing the words of those same German pilots. It shows you may not need the absolute best radar in every fighter. Nowadays they would tell you about LPI magic of the Western radars but this is another highly arguable issue, if you emit you are going to be detected, you can only hope to fool low tech adversaries.

During testing the computer usually fired 3-7 rounds but the targets were being destroyed... the designed later said if he had known it was going to be that effective he would have halved the number of ready to fire rounds of ammo.

Wow that is pretty impressive effectiveness, but then there is a reason for the 30 mm cannon. Apparently the MiG-29 gave the impression of being close to falling apart when shooting it due to vibration, but then the effects of high rate of fire and high calibre indicate the weapon is the correct one, way better than a 20 mm Vulcan with >500 rounds as in US fighters.

Because during development it will gain weight and MTOW needs to be below 18 tons just to get a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.

A 6 ton fighter and a 9-10 one are fundamentally different categories of planes. If you start in one and end up in the other during development you should consider another occupation. It is no big mystery to calculate the weight of a plane given engine, capabilities and sizes. But then if you screw it with the requirements and in every difficulty double down instead of acknowledging your errors and going back to the starting point you get the F-35. This should not be an example of fighter development program but an example of management failure. The good thing for the Russians is they don't have the money to underperform that badly xD

The whole point of TVC is to leave normal flight where conventional control surfaces are useless anyway...

Agree on your argumentation but TVC has many other uses:
> Low drag trimming
> Flight control redundancy
> LO

For instance you can use the TVC in order to minimize flight control deflection and hence RCS return in the frontal aspect. There are many possibilities. It also allows flat or even inverted turns where you keep a certain attitude to the enemy radars also to control your signal return.

Back to the point discussed, a single engine fighter with TVC is capable of pointing the nose at low air speeds too (pitch and yaw manoeuvring). Roll manoeuvres through differential TVC deflection have little relevance in that regard, or at least I don't see it. The engine placed well at the end of the fuselage is relevant here too. For instance J-10 is well designed in that regard while F-35 would have very short force arms.

If you deduct the cost of developing the F-16 and just made more F-15s they would have saved a lot of money because the F-16 ended up costing as much as the expensive planes they were supposed to replace.

Here I have to disagree strongly. The F-16 is a resounding success, they have sold thousands of them and they are still in production. It is the back bone of Western leaning AFs and many other nations that could not be cleared for the F-15 or would not have the money to buy and operate it. Of course with exaggerated level of add-ons it got heavy and due to US pricing policies it is not that cheap anymore, but still way cheaper than a Rafale for instance while close enough in performance. The quintessential modern light fighter is the F-16 and so it is rather a business model to imitate than to avoid I think...

Su-34 - fighter bomber
MiG-31 fighter interceptor

This is according to VSS terminology. If you check WIKI too check: MiG-31 is counted as fighter and Su-34 as front aviation (AK in PAK)

Yeah, and an F-117 is a stealth FIGHTER, and the F-111 has a fighter designation too... but what is your point?

and when will come time to build new gen fighter then?

The MiG-35 and Su-35 are pretty much new aircraft that are only just entering service... they have just become very capable fully multirole platforms... something their previous models were not... why are you in such a hurry to junk them?

Do you think Russia can afford an all stealth fleet?

Do you think that is what they even want?

Americans often are all or nothing... they stopped working on conventionally powered submarines a while back, and are now going for an all stealthy aircraft fleet with F-22s and F-35s replacing everything... do you think that is a good thing for the Russians to follow?

Do you think what the Russians really need is an F-35 to fool all their allies into signing up for?

The Su-57 is not just a Russian F-22... it is optimised to kill stealthy aircraft... the F-22 on the other hand is a cold war relic that was supposed to take the high ground and snipe at large numbers of enemy fighters that were not stealthy... it is a colonial fighter intended to break third world countries...

Russia doesn't need it.

I know you love F-35 but this is as much fighter as Su-34.

Good, I am glad we agree it is not a fighter then.

They unlikely will be built in numbers. But there are 4 programmes of 6gen fighter already ongoing.

But what about 20th gen fighters... shouldn't we be worrying about those too?

When someone actually comes up with an specification for a 6th gen fighter then it might be worth some interest... right now the Russians have said they are looking at 6th gen avionics in the Su-57, so it sounds like they are working on that too.

Not sure what downgraded model means to you. Su-30MKI wasnt really worse then Su-27.

The aircraft the Indians based their new fighter on was the Su-30, which is pretty much better known as Su-27UB... it certainly was not better than the Su-27M at the time, which was the best the Russians could manage at the time.

Of course with Indian funding and foreign components and systems the Su-30MKI became rather better than the Su-27M, which pretty much led to further work improving the Flanker with technology being worked on for the PAK FA/MFI programme which led to the Su-35, which is also better than the Su-30MKI... even more so in Russian terms because it is all Russian components and systems.

and yes MiG-35 is very capable fighter . Just IMHO for Russia current situation came in wrong time that's all.

I would say the timing is perfect... they need a few extra fighters to build up current force numbers...

TIs not me.Reality proves you wrong. MiG has been now involved with new drones development. MiG-41 too. If you were correct nobody would invest a penny in MiG.

MiG is not a free standing company, it is part of OAK... funding and support are not unlimited... there is talk of work resuming on SKAT, but work on SKAT was also suspended some time ago because of lack of interest. It is clear there is more funding available now. Funding for the MiG-35 makes sense as domestic production is starting, while MiG-31s will need to be replaced... that is a fact, so it makes sense to invest in MiG-41.

If they are only making 6 MiG-35s then that will limit their resources for other things because development and production cost resources... resources that can't really be shared... you can't slip a few SKAT prototypes down the MiG-35 production line to get them made real quick...

Of course international sales of MiG-35s to Egypt or Iran would very much help things because the profit margins on exports are enormous compared with domestic production...

do you have a Freudian fixation on F-35?

People who forget mistakes are doomed to repeat them...

None of 6gen requirements say about subsonic.

If you want to mass produce them then make them cheaper... how often to modern fighter aircraft break the speed of sound operationally?

The only exception would be the MiG-31 that does it routinely, but supersonic flight for most other aircraft is a rare thing... so why waste money on something you don't do very much?

Well MiG-31BM can carry air-surface weapons including bombs. Why MiG-41 shouldn't have such ability?

Why waste time with abilities that wont be used?

What is it going to bomb in Siberia or the north pole?

4. I agree. Especially when Atalir programme was fucked up by design organization.

Sukhoi and MiG have experience in project management and Russian politics and dealing with the military...

IT's yet to be seen. IMHO more chances has MiG in case of Indians buying it. Same as with MiG-29K. Su-35 for sure.

Why wouldn't the Indians buy it... their alternatives would be the F-18, which is probably almost as expensive as a Rafale, and F-16 which Pakistan uses, or the MiG-35...

If they are not happy with the Su-57 then they would hate the F-35.

Su-34 can carry both R-27 and R-73.

It can also carry R-77, but only for self defence.

no its not. Its less. for the same money.

So you keep claiming but without numbers or evidence... you don't even seem to know much about the MiG-35 and seem to think of it as being just a MiG-29.

because they already bough license and building it on their own? BTW thy bought MKI but rejected MiG-35

Different weight class, they wanted aircraft diversity of suppliers so they had a Russian Flanker so they had to go with a French medium weight aircraft to replace the M2Ks.

It's OK you dont have to as you are not an aerospace expert. And 30 years ago there were no airbags or catalysts in every car. Autonomous an e electric care were also not in sight.

The fundamental issues of vertical takeoff and supersonic flight have not changed...

A carrier the size of the QE could (easily) handle STOBAR operations if equipped for it, and at the end of the day STO performance is dismal and they are (news from today in fact) already performing rolling landings. I can agree this is good for the airframe in the long term but the cost to achieve it is extreme. Unless you have a plane really capable of taking-off and landing vertically almost everywhere I am not sure the advantages above STOBAR are really worth the effort.

Exactly... it is happening again.... oh it is the panacea... it can take off or land anywhere... it will be the only operational fighter when all the airfields are destroyed... and now rolling takeoffs to "improve" performance and rolling landing to reduce "strain" on the engines... and you go from a super plane that can land on a helicopter pad to... hey the carriers are too small to operate these planes properly... but by then it is too late... you can't make the carriers bigger... without blowing a huge wad of cash....

They are never going to be cheap, I take it for a fact. They are high-tech material that need careful testing besides hugely expensive manufacturing equipment. And the production and assembly itself is complex as well, these are hybrid devices. IMO it is always going to be a significant cost driver. See below antenna and elements of the S-300, does not look like the elements of the N036 for instance (do not now the radar model and frequency here but just as an example). This is very purpose oriented, specific and expensive technology as far as I understand.

I remember when CDs came out... cassette tapes were about 20 dollars each and CDs were about 30 dollars... but they were hard to make so they cost more, and you got much better sound quality.

Well over time the cost of making CD collapsed and if you pay 50c for a CD you are probably being ripped off.

I have a photo from a German magazine from the 1990s that shows the progression of radar components... each was about 2 years apart and they started out rather big and got smaller and smaller till the last one was the size of a thumbnail... initially each step in miniaturisation was also expensive too but over time production reduced costs and improvements in design also made them better performing and cheaper to produce in bulk.

I remember my first video tape recorder... it cost 2,500 dollars... I could have bought a car and at the time that would have been a good fraction of the price of a house... now try and buy them... you can't... they don't make them any more...

Was just passing the words of those same German pilots. It shows you may not need the absolute best radar in every fighter. Nowadays they would tell you about LPI magic of the Western radars but this is another highly arguable issue, if you emit you are going to be detected, you can only hope to fool low tech adversaries.

The west operated with AWACS... the Soviets used the same system but it was ground based... it wasn't designed for mobility and conquest... it was designed for self defence.

Wow that is pretty impressive effectiveness, but then there is a reason for the 30 mm cannon. Apparently the MiG-29 gave the impression of being close to falling apart when shooting it due to vibration, but then the effects of high rate of fire and high calibre indicate the weapon is the correct one, way better than a 20 mm Vulcan with >500 rounds as in US fighters.

The evolution of aircraft guns is very interesting... all through WWII and into Korea the Americans persisted in using HMGs rather than cannon... most other countries moved on from HMG calibres and adopted cannon rather quickly.

The MiG-15 showed the 23mm cannon for use against enemy fighters and a 37mm cannon for heavy bombers... the next MiGs (21/23) used 23mm cannon only, while the 30mm gun was adopted as a weapon that could be used on fighters and bombers...

The American guns go for muzzle velocity, whereas the Soviet guns tended to go for heavy projectile with a good HE payload... if you put a light projectile in a Russian 23 x 115mm round you would get similar high velocities as the Americans get with their 20mm cannon, but the Soviets preferred to hit harder and rely on rate of fire to get a hit rather than high muzzle velocity...

A 6 ton fighter and a 9-10 one are fundamentally different categories of planes. If you start in one and end up in the other during development you should consider another occupation. It is no big mystery to calculate the weight of a plane given engine, capabilities and sizes. But then if you screw it with the requirements and in every difficulty double down instead of acknowledging your errors and going back to the starting point you get the F-35. This should not be an example of fighter development program but an example of management failure. The good thing for the Russians is they don't have the money to underperform that badly xD

The risk of all light fighters is to try to make them as good as heavy fighters... hard limits on weight is the best way to prevent mission creep...

For instance you can use the TVC in order to minimize flight control deflection and hence RCS return in the frontal aspect. There are many possibilities. It also allows flat or even inverted turns where you keep a certain attitude to the enemy radars also to control your signal return.

Back to the point discussed, a single engine fighter with TVC is capable of pointing the nose at low air speeds too (pitch and yaw manoeuvring). Roll manoeuvres through differential TVC deflection have little relevance in that regard, or at least I don't see it. The engine placed well at the end of the fuselage is relevant here too. For instance J-10 is well designed in that regard while F-35 would have very short force arms.

Having no roll control at low speeds limits the ability of the pilot to follow a target with a gun or simply manouver freely.

Having no roll control means no ability to prevent a roll that might be caused by momentum...

Here I have to disagree strongly. The F-16 is a resounding success, they have sold thousands of them and they are still in production. It is the back bone of Western leaning AFs and many other nations that could not be cleared for the F-15 or would not have the money to buy and operate it. Of course with exaggerated level of add-ons it got heavy and due to US pricing policies it is not that cheap anymore, but still way cheaper than a Rafale for instance while close enough in performance. The quintessential modern light fighter is the F-16 and so it is rather a business model to imitate than to avoid I think...

I think you are confusing the F-16 with the F-20 which really would have actually been a cheap fighter... something the electric jet certainly was not.

GarryB wrote:

Su-34 - fighter bomber
MiG-31  fighter interceptor

... but what is your point?

try to focus this time: VVS classifies bot above as fighters and says they need at least 700 fighters. So you are corrector they are?

and when will come time to build new gen fighter then?

(1) The MiG-35 and Su-35 are pretty much new aircraft that are only just entering service... they have just become very capable fully multirole platforms... something their previous models were not... why are you in such a hurry to junk them?  

(2) Do you think Russia can afford an all stealth fleet?

(3) Do you think that is what they even want?

(4) Americans often are all or nothing... Do you think what the Russians really need is an F-35 to fool all their allies into signing up for?

(1) in 2030 they wont be top, in 2040 hey will be obsolete.

(2)  depending on what stealth means for you? no i dont think Russians will optimize against stealth.

(3) Funding of MiG-41, VSTOL ( and LMFS) say they do.

(4) F-35 is based on  90s concept and also solutions. Development started in 1992. Why Russia is supposed to copy 90s approach and solutions? not to mention "average NATO requirement" ? Russians dropped MiG-1.44 before 2000.

I know you love F-35 but this is as much fighter as Su-34.

Good, I am glad we agree it is not a fighter then.

Thats why Su-34 has integrated R-27. But wait CATOBAR F-35 is not a fighter?      

They unlikely will be built in numbers. But there are 4 programmes of 6gen fighter already ongoing.

But what about 20th gen fighters... shouldn't we be worrying about those too?
When someone actually comes up with an specification for a 6th gen fighter then it might be worth some interest... right now the Russians have said they are looking at 6th gen avionics in the Su-57, so it sounds like they are working on that too.

I m sure not only avionics. Airframes and engines will be different too. This is not about generation qualitative leap towards future.

and yes MiG-35 is very capable fighter . Just IMHO for Russia current situation came in wrong time that's all.

I would say the timing is perfect... they need a few extra fighters to build up current force numbers...

ekhm 6 piecs in till 2023? if it is so cheap and needed ? Doesnt look like to me.

TIs not me.Reality proves you wrong.  MiG has been now involved with new drones development. MiG-41 too. If you were correct nobody would invest a penny in MiG.

(1)MiG is not a free standing company, it is part of OAK... funding and support are not unlimited... (2) there is talk of work resuming on SKAT, but work on SKAT was also suspended some time ago because of lack of interest. It is clear there is more funding available now. (3) Funding for the MiG-35 makes sense as domestic production is starting, while MiG-31s will need to be replaced... that is a fact, so it makes sense to invest in MiG-41.

I(4) f they are only making 6 MiG-35s then that will limit their resources for other things because development and production cost resources... resources that can't really be shared... you can't slip a few SKAT prototypes down the MiG-35 production line to get them made real quick...

(1) yes it is, CEO MiG is deputy CEO of OAK. As of toady       nobody has unlimited funding, however for MoD approved projects financing always is there
nu
(2) because MoD is not set for drones.Idea is not original: drones you just build in numbers you need. You dont need much of  human capital, top level  long trained pilots. Operators (if drone is not 100% autonomous to shoot) can be controlled by game player in thick glasses and either overweight or too skinny      

(3) agree

(4) well that's my reasoning, you have limited resources. Thus you canot make all, MG-41, Skats, LMFS/VSTOL and MiG-35.

do you have a Freudian fixation on F-35?

People who forget mistakes are doomed to repeat them...

what makes you think they  will copy F-35? Below is website news of "Russian DARPA". NO it's not about any fighter but there are couple of interesting quotes with regard to mindlessly copying  US requirements.


https://fpi.gov.ru/press/news/zavershen_perviy_jetap_proekta_po_sozdaniyu_samoleta_sverhkorotkogo_vzleta_i_posadki

The work of the first phase of the Advanced Research Foundation project on the creation of aircraft demonstrators for vertical or ultra short take-off and landing (SSVP) was completed

The teams proposed original solutions that did not involve  the world mainstream in the field of developing off-aerodrome-based vehicles - converters and multicopters. Now we can say that these decisions are confirmed by calculation and experimentally, and most importantly, implemented in the form of finished aircraft shapes. Currently, preparations are underway to create their large-scale counterparts.

 None of 6gen requirements say about subsonic.

If you want to mass produce them then make them cheaper... how often to modern fighter aircraft break the speed of sound operationally?

then why S-35 and Su-57 have supercruise? Typhoon,Rafale, F-22, Grippen too.

Well  MiG-31BM  can carry  air-surface weapons including  bombs. Why MiG-41 shouldn't have such ability?

Why waste time with abilities that wont be used?
What is it going to bomb in Siberia or the north pole?

Shiiit RuAF spent money on things are not needed?!  claim a general seat there, you know better.

IT's yet to be seen. IMHO more chances has MiG in case of Indians buying it. Same as with MiG-29K.  Su-35 for sure.

Why wouldn't the Indians buy it... their alternatives would be the F-18, which is probably almost as expensive as a Rafale, and F-16 which Pakistan uses, or the MiG-35...

politics (internal/external) -  economy - with dash of military requirements?

Su-34 can carry both R-27 and R-73.

It can also carry R-77, but only for self defence.

and you install 200km range AAM for self defense? Sure, and I keep at home a machine gun chambered  for Lapua-Magnum ammo

no its not. Its  less. for the same money.  

So you keep claiming but without numbers or evidence... you don't even seem to know much about the MiG-35 and seem to think of it as being just a MiG-29.

Seriously ? so you have deep insight into MiG-35? blind me with your knowledge, dotn be shy


as for evidence: only source news no forums. Do you have better? share of dotn accuse without ANY proof

MiG-35 was ~1bln Rub in 2013 since then you need to multiply 1,45 to keep up with inflation only,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2257997

Su-30 now till 2022  (so next 3 years inflation included) 1,95 bln Rub.
https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2018/08/16/778384-do-kontsa-goda-ne-menee-istrebitelei

so you have min 1,5 vs less then 2 blns. New fighter with weak production that needs to be restarted. Vs. fighter with better abilities and working production lines.

It's OK you dont have to as you are not an aerospace expert. And 30 years ago there were no airbags or catalysts in every car. Autonomous an e electric care were also not in sight.

The fundamental issues of vertical takeoff and supersonic flight have not changed...

are you missing a point  on purpose of you just dont understand? laws of physics didnt not change. Technology did.  In your opinion Armata is worse than T-72? Laws of physics for both are the same.

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:

They better have more resilient plans, otherwise they will never manage to get a long term development accomplished. Sensibility analyses need to be performed and a solution that fits several scenarios chosen.

If they are designing their F-35 they need to ensure that the compromises to make it STOVL do not make the STOBAR and conventional land based models are not fucked up by awkward aerodynamics that really don't suit supersonic area rule shaping...

And heavier than a F-15E BTW...
STOVL is an interesting challenge. I am trying to think of some layout in which the HW to create vertical lift is used also for horizontal lift... but area ruling suffers badly from that compromise, a fighter is a extremely demanding application so no luxuries of extra space and weight are allowed. A CTOL is always going to have an advantage, this is IMHO difficult to avoid. And commonality between CTOL or STOBAR/CATOBAR and STOVL is not really going to work. I admit the F-35 is pretty much as good as it gets in terms of STOVL, but then, for what? A carrier the size of the QE could (easily) handle STOBAR operations if equipped for it, and at the end of the day STO performance is dismal and they are (news from today in fact) already performing rolling landings. I can agree this is good for the airframe in the long term but the cost to achieve it is extreme. Unless you have a plane really capable of taking-off and landing vertically almost everywhere I am not sure the advantage

Oh now I see input for interesting discussion. I agree that F-35 had to way many requirements to be good. Especially for that money. Harrier and Yak-141 weren't even nearly as expensive for a good reason: none of them tried to squeeze 3 planes in 1. No you canot get all.


If we refer Russian VSTOL requirements wont be copy of F-35 ones, why they should be? Russia doesnt need a CATOBAR fighter, perhaps same fighter can be used also in RuAF.

Only my educated guess would be: extremely strong air frame to be maneuverable (drone fighter is restricted to 9g) , efficiency and powerful engines. I dont think that in this case load will be fetish. stealth - well say unlikely too. What you often miss is tech advances: both 2 D TVC and digital control of thrust and flaps. New materials.
its interesting how do they approach V part in STOL? will it be an updated version of any of already built VSTOL (Harrier, Yok-41 or F-35)? or something innovative and brand new?


Catapult - there is only one country in the world that builds catapults. For Russia project is risky (US with longest catapult building experience started to think EMALS in 2000s) . Prhaps becsue US has best budget in the world? Now we have 2018 and not sure if EMLAS is working as foreseen. Till 2017 cost was 1bln $.

US can install it on 12 CVNs .

Russia? 1-2? min 10 years of R&D, billions of rubles invested and outcome? 1 max 2 installations. The question now is why to invest in one piece of equipment 10-20% of new fighter programme? I am afraid that RuN doesnt share your care free interest for catapults.








BTW lookat that

try to focus this time: VVS classifies bot above as fighters and says they need at least 700 fighters. So you are corrector they are?

The VVS says a lot of things... do they take into account the needs of the VKKO and VMF and FA?

(1) in 2030 they wont be top, in 2040 hey will be obsolete.

So you keep claiming, but you are talking about 10 years in the future and I don't see anything the west is actually working on that makes these types obsolete yet....

Thats why Su-34 has integrated R-27. But wait CATOBAR F-35 is not a fighter?

Not in the US Navy... the Super Hornet is the fighter and the F-35 is a strike aircraft.

Su-34 has integrated R-27 because it is a standard air to air missile... it wont be sent on CAP or interception missions... it is a strike aircraft like an Su-24.

ekhm 6 piecs in till 2023? if it is so cheap and needed ? Doesnt look like to me.

12 Su-57s... so half as many ordered as the primary premiere Russian top tier stealth fighter... that is not as bad as you are suggesting.

(4) well that's my reasoning, you have limited resources. Thus you canot make all, MG-41, Skats, LMFS/VSTOL and MiG-35.

They wont even have a prototype MiG-41 before 2022-2023, and it will take longer for the LMFS/STOVL, so really it will only be MiG-35s in production... and likely new AESA radars for MiG-31s over the next few years...

Making Skats is more like making missiles... having the current conflict in Syria and when that ends any conflict in Libya and/or Yemen offers excellent opportunities for testing and operational use of hardware and tactics... I very much disagree with your suggestion that a UCAV is just a flight simulator attached to a real aircraft and weapons and that it can be flown by anyone...

then why S-35 and Su-57 have supercruise? Typhoon,Rafale, F-22, Grippen too.

There is a price to pay to get supersonic speed, and for many drones such a price has little to no return...

Look at Skat... 800km/h max speed... why is it not hypersonic?

Shiiit RuAF spent money on things are not needed?! claim a general seat there, you know better.

The reason they didn't bother with the SMT upgrade of the MiG-29 was that the units they had them in were interceptor units with no air to ground requirements, so multirole capability was superfluous...

politics (internal/external) - economy - with dash of military requirements?

The Typhoon is no cheaper than the Rafale, the Gripen has American parts so they will need Americas permission to buy, and the F-16 and F-18 and F-35 are all American... with America about to impose sanctions on India for buying S-400s... what else can they pick realistically?

I am surprised they didn't buy the MiG-35 in the first place, it was the only one that matched their budget and passed all their requirements...

and you install 200km range AAM for self defense? Sure, and I keep at home a machine gun chambered for Lapua-Magnum ammo

A fire and forget ARH air to air missile is ideal for self defence and takes the same pylon space as an R-73 but can reach out further and kill enemy aircraft before they become a threat.

The fact is that you wont see an Su-34 with an all AAM loadout used as an interceptor... its primary mission is medium to long range strike.

so you have min 1,5 vs less then 2 blns. New fighter with weak production that needs to be restarted. Vs. fighter with better abilities and working production lines.

You provide numbers and then immediately set about fudging them to support your case, but what you ignore is that the MiG-35 is better than an Su-30, and should be compared with an Su-35... and the MiG-35 being half the price of the less capable Su-30 clearly shows why they have started production of the MiG-35 and are ending production of the Su-30...

are you missing a point on purpose of you just dont understand? laws of physics didnt not change. Technology did. In your opinion Armata is worse than T-72? Laws of physics for both are the same.

You are the one saying a hover tank needs to be built and it will be much better than a current tank because it can take off vertically... and all the obvious problems that would make such a design shit will be overcome with smart thinking and new technology.

Well in this case they had VTOL fighters and they were shit. They had newer models and they were cancelled too.

The US is introducing its own VSTOL fighter and it looks like rubbish as well.

Oh now I see input for interesting discussion. I agree that F-35 had to way many requirements to be good. Especially for that money. Harrier and Yak-141 weren't even nearly as expensive for a good reason: none of them tried to squeeze 3 planes in 1. No you canot get all.

The fact of the matter is that 2 of those three planes are fine... it was the Harrier/Yak-41 component that screwed everything up.

Without the STOVL component the F-35 could have been a slim compact, slightly under armed, stealthy F-16 that would be nimble and capable.

its interesting how do they approach V part in STOL? will it be an updated version of any of already built VSTOL (Harrier, Yok-41 or F-35)? or something innovative and brand new?

The Harrier was not supersonic so the effect of vertical component of its performance was not that huge, the Yak-41 just didn't work... the lift jet arrangement meant it could not land vertically without an engine stall and crash... the problems were pretty fundamental and the design of the F-35 was pretty much all they could do to fix it, but it would have been rather better if it didn't have the requirement to be supersonic...

Catapult - there is only one country in the world that builds catapults. For Russia project is risky (US with longest catapult building experience started to think EMALS in 2000s) . Prhaps becsue US has best budget in the world? Now we have 2018 and not sure if EMLAS is working as foreseen. Till 2017 cost was 1bln $.

EMALS is physics and materials science... the Russians are every bit as capable in these spheres as the US... experience with steam cats is irrelevant... otherwise the Brits would be making them too.

US can install it on 12 CVNs .

Russia can apply it to maglev trains all over Russia... tens of thousands of kms worth...

Not to mention the potential for space applications... a kinetic accelerator could be used to launch things from low earth orbit into deep space or the moon or whereever...

Hell the technology could be combined with their new nuclear rocket propulsion space tug they are designing to capture space junk in orbit and accelerate it to burn up in the atmosphere...

Russia? 1-2? min 10 years of R&D, billions of rubles invested and outcome? 1 max 2 installations.

There would be two EMALs cat on each CVN they build so 4 and perhaps more if they want to put it on other platforms like cruisers to launch UAVs... especially if they develop AWACS UAVs.

In fact they could be put on container ships to launch UAVs as well.

The question now is why to invest in one piece of equipment 10-20% of new fighter programme? I am afraid that RuN doesnt share your care free interest for catapults.

Yet they have no cancelled the EMALS programme...

BTW lookat that

What a load of crap... wonder why they didn't pick it.... BTW I have seen transport planes with shorter take off runs.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Oh now I see input for interesting discussion.

Good discussion for Gunship means STOVL irrespective of the thread  

I agree that F-35 had to way many requirements to be good.  Especially for that money. Harrier and Yak-141 weren't even nearly as expensive for a good reason: none of them tried to squeeze 3 planes in 1. No you canot get all.

Please try to understand and use your knowledge about physics:

STOVL needs lift in the CoG while engines for horizontal flight are placed at the rear of the plane. So there is a fundamental layout difference, aggravated by the fact that a fighter needs to be compact, streamlined, nimble, balanced and resistant...all in extreme levels. To it you add modern requirements of signature management and internal carriage of weapons (the latter not only related to LO but to aero/range).

The main difficulties and questionable shaping of the air vehicle in JSF arise from that fact, not from needing a CTOL/CATOBAR fighter with some internal carriage capacity. F-35 carries roughly half the ordnance a Su-57 internally with a empty weight between 70 and 80% of the Sukhoi, depending on the variant. Not pretending to make it a proof but as an indication, I got 2x A2G weapons + 2x MRAAM x 2xSRAAM in a ca. 10 tons layout slightly above 5 sqm. cross sectional area. Something similar could have been achieved in JSF well below the 8.4 sqm cross section / 13.4 tons of a F-35 I am pretty sure.

If we refer Russian VSTOL requirements  wont be copy of F-35 ones, why they should be?  Russia doesnt  need a CATOBAR fighter, perhaps same fighter can be used also in RuAF.  

Only strong requirement of CATOBAR is a reinforced airframe and oversized front landing gear, plus the customary hook and some landing guidance instrumentation. So no relevant influence in design. Other thing is that Navy wanted a modicum of bombing capacity from it which was not very smart to combine with an airframe thought to substitute the F-16 but CATOBAR has little to do with this.

Only my educated guess would be:  extremely strong air frame to be maneuverable (drone fighter is restricted to 9g) , efficiency and powerful  engines.  I dont think that in this case load will be fetish. stealth - well say unlikely too.  What you often miss is tech advances: both 2 D TVC and digital control of thrust and flaps. New materials.
its interesting how do they approach V part in STOL? will it be an updated version of any of already built VSTOL (Harrier, Yok-41 or F-35)?   or something innovative and brand new?

You need internal capacity for range too, so no "engine with wings" approach. Every fighter designer out there is using new materials and doing logical things, but they do not have to fight also with the VSTOL requirement. So they end up with a superior result, time after time.

Catapult - there is only one country in the world that builds catapults. For Russia project is risky (US with longest catapult building experience started to think EMALS in 2000s) . Prhaps becsue US has best budget in the world?  Now we have 2018 and not sure if EMLAS is working  as foreseen. Till 2017 cost was 1bln $.

US can install it on 12 CVNs .

Russia? 1-2? min  10 years of R&D, billions of rubles invested and outcome? 1 max 2 installations.  The question now is why to invest in one piece of equipment 10-20% of new fighter programme? I am afraid that RuN doesnt share your care free interest for catapults.

After seeing the real performance of the real STOVL planes you keep insisting on them, why? STOBAR fighters perform better, your only answer is "but but, the Supreme Commander..." Put a couple of cable arrestors in that QE and you can operate real fighters for god's sake...

Besides, I have explained more than 100 times that fighters do not need catapults. They are for tankers and AWACS. So STOVL fighters have zero to do with eliminating the need for catapults in RuN.

BTW lookat that  

You may laugh as much as you want but this was a very sensible approach and end design a much nicer one. Probably you ignore that Navy changed requirements already with the prototype half built so they had to change it with a aesthetically questionable result, but fact is, the engine in the CoG as Boeings proposal's has is the only way to keep the STVOL version close in performance to the CTOL one.

In fact after I have been trying (unknowing of the fundamentals of X-32 design and propulsion proposal) to go for a propulsion solution close to the CoG to get a STOVL with less performance loss, I ended up essentially with a X-32. And I have done several models I can tell you, but this was the best.
> Since the engine is forward placed, nose is very short and there is an intake at the chin. As forward as possible to avoid ingestion of hot air and to have good pressure recovery
> There needs to be a channel for the exhaust airt to the back of the plane (in X-32) or the fuselage needs to be "removed" from its path backwards (mine, but not sure it would work though)
> An air bleed is added at the compressor to work as a cold air wall to shield the intake from the hot air of the exhaust and to balance the plane



In this way, the same HW in charge of horizontal flight does not need to be doubled to create vertical lift, only slightly modified. This creates a good deal of complexity (swivel nozzles, air bleeds, control nozzles far from CoG for stability etc.) but keeps the extra weight and space contained. Weapons bays and wave drag suffer the most, nevertheless. But in this case fuel capacity would be outstanding.

So there you have it, your hated X-32 is the result of STOVL requirements, I see a poetic irony in that, don't you?

Not really. Su-30SM has a powerfull radar and is two seater. It has longer range and more weapons. In a same sortie it could use kh-59 to attack mig-35's base and go for a combat against it with still more weapons.

The MiG-35 has a powerful and sophisticated AESA radar and is one or two seater by design. It also has an inflight refuelling probe so it can fly anywhere the Flanker could fly too.

MiG-35 has a much more sophisticated self defence capability.

Su-35 isn't that much better too. Even if its systems are better than those in the su-30, it doesn't mean su-30 systems won't work against a su-35. Then it comes to pilot and su-30 has two inside so it's easier for them. Mig 35D also two pilots but shorter range.

The Su-35 is vastly more sophisticated and does not need two crew. The Su-30 is not the same as an Su-35.

All the 3 will spot the others far away before being able to launch missiles. Mig-35 advantage is AESA LPI but still sukhoi's radars will see the mig far away so they don't need RWR to spot them, they will spot r-77 however pretty easily. Su-35 supercruise is an advantage even if it consume fuel faster but the other two can accelerate above mach 1 to launch their missiles.

If the Su-35 sees the MiG-35 first then it is using its radar so the MiG-35 doesn't need to use its radar at all. The MiG on the other hand can use a LPI mode and look for targets without being obvious about it... The MiG is smaller and harder to detect, and can operate with more sophisticated systems to remain quiet and yet still do its job.

All the 3 match each other. The one who would win is the one who has more fighters in the air and which pilots know their fighter very well. So it comes to price and production rates and sukhois wins over mig easily.

What? If your argument is numbers are important then you are arguing for MiG-35s. Currently they are not being mass produced but with export orders and a big domestic order they could make hundreds very easily at much less cost than making Flankers.

If they have done like I said previously a semi-stealth plateform to give it an rcs ~0.5-0.7 m2 with weapons but with actual mig-35's systems it would have been worth the price.

Yeah, if they flew a manned mission to Mars for the price of flying into earth orbit then it would also be worth it... but stealth is expensive... just like manned space missions to other planets...

There is nothing you could do to the MiG-35 design to create a capacity for internal weapons carriage and it is that issue that stops the RCS from ever being less than 1m.

Besides, I have explained more than 100 times that fighters do not need catapults. They are for tankers and AWACS. So STOVL fighters have zero to do with eliminating the need for catapults in RuN.

But in GD world if the STOVL fighter works then they can decide to build a small carrier and all the money spent on EMALS they will get back from the pixies...

Of course if the STOVL fighter is crap then they will need EMALs and a big carrier... so what he is saying is that by 2040 Russia might get their first CVN... depending on whether the STOVL works it will either be a 30K ton dwarf with no EMALs and no chance, or a 150K ton American money sink... absorbing all economic resources of Russia... and one EMALS system that wont work but it is paid for so they will carry it... even though it costs them an AWACS platform every time they try to take off.

You may laugh as much as you want but this was a very sensible approach and end design a much nicer one. Probably you ignore that Navy changed requirements already with the prototype half built so they had to change it with a aesthetically questionable result, but fact is, the engine in the CoG as Boeings proposal's has is the only way to keep the STVOL version close in performance to the CTOL one.

They tried to do the same with the Yak-41 with those arm booms out the back with the tail surfaces on them, though it actually looks most like the Yak-36...

The Yak-41 moved the engine back a little and required two lift engines behind the cockpit... all three engines in AB obliterated runways like you would not believe...

So there you have it, your hated X-32 is the result of STOVL requirements, I see a poetic irony in that, don't you?

Don't be silly... GD is in love... a bit of make up... and a bit of vaseline on the camera lens... and a paper bag over her head and she is a real looker... with the lights off.

Have always been impressed with the capacity of Russian engineers to solve problems... but in this case I think this will be a real challenge.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Oh now I see input for interesting discussion.

Good discussion for Gunship means STOVL irrespective of the thread  

but of course!      

STOVL needs lift in the CoG while engines for horizontal flight are placed at the rear of the plane. So there is a fundamental layout difference, aggravated by the fact that a fighter needs to be compact, streamlined, nimble, balanced and resistant...all in extreme levels. To it you add modern requirements of signature manage(1) ment and internal carriage of weapons (the latter not only related to LO but to aero/range).

The main difficulties and questionable shaping of the air vehicle in JSF arise from that fact, (2) not from needing a CTOL/CATOBAR fighter with some internal carriage capacity. F-35 carries roughly half the ordnance a Su-57 internally with a empty weight between 70 and 80% of the Sukhoi, depending on the variant. Not pretending to make it a proof but as an indication, I got 2x A2G weapons + 2x MRAAM x 2xSRAAM in a ca. 10 tons layout slightly above 5 sqm. cross sectional area. Something similar could have been achieved in JSF well below the 8.4 sqm cross section / 13.4 tons of a F-35 I am pretty sure.

Hmm and  I'd appreciate your short advanced physics in layman's terms please:

(1) what does it mean extreme for you? is there mass and size in requirements? Had such Su-57?  Because if not then fulfilling requirements makes you to use specific technological solutions. Not the other way around. And no there is no rule fighter has to be compact.



(2) As can you see F-35 without VSTOL ability is still bulky  and fat. Still looks poorly comparing to Su-57.  Perhaps you missed here that F-35 is much smaller and has less place for bomb bays regardless  on vtol or not .


(3) Frankly speaking I got an impression payload and VLO is kind of fetish for you. Payload is important but mainly for bombing.  What is weight even 10xR-77+2xR-73 ->10x190 + 2x105kg = 2210kg. Well why  would you need 10 tons if not for bombing tasks.  Onyx ~3000kg, Kh-50 ~1600kg (Janes) and GZURsimilarly due same size as Kh-50 (Tu-22M3 revolver launcher).

Actually for fleet defense or ship countering tasks tell me why 5-6 tons shall be not enough?

If we refer Russian VSTOL requirements  wont be copy of F-35 ones, why they should be?  Russia doesnt  need a CATOBAR fighter, perhaps same fighter can be used also in RuAF.  

Only strong requirement of CATOBAR is a reinforced airframe and oversized front landing gear, plus the customary hook and some landing guidance instrumentation. So no relevant influence in design. Other thing is that Navy wanted a modicum of bombing capacity from it which was not very smart to combine with an airframe thought to substitute the F-16 but CATOBAR has little to do with this.

Oh so CATOBAR didn influence technical solutions and weight?  pls let me remain skeptical about this.
weight CTOL/CATOBAR  13,154kg/15,686 (wiki). Then please explain how CATOABR got 20% heavier comparing to CTOL?

Only my educated guess would be:  extremely strong air frame to be maneuverable (drone fighter is restricted to 9g) , efficiency and powerful  engines.  I dont think that in this case load will be fetish. stealth - well say unlikely too.  What you often miss is tech advances: both 2 D TVC and digital control of thrust and flaps. New materials.
its interesting how do they approach V part in STOL? will it be an updated version of any of already built VSTOL (Harrier, Yok-41 or F-35)?   or something innovative and brand new?

You need internal capacity for range too, so no "engine with wings" approach. Every fighter designer out there is using new materials and doing logical things, but they do not have to fight also with the VSTOL requirement. So they end up with a superior result, time after time. [/quote]

Never superior, always inferior  in  VSTOL category, isnt it? Depends what is a superior result for a customer : is it 20% more payload and 300% longer takeoff strip?  We can of course compare endlessly categories that are important for you to prove you are correct. But I prefer to ask the question: why Russian Navy knowing much better then any of us, do still insists in VSTOL?  

Catapult - there is only one country in the world that builds catapults. {} Perhaps because US has best budget in the world?  {}US can install it on 12 CVNs .
{}Russia? 1-2? min  10 years of R&D, billions of rubles invested and outcome? 1 max 2 installations.  The question now is why to invest in one piece of equipment 10-20% of new fighter programme? I am afraid that RuN doesnt share your care free interest for catapults.

(1) After seeing the real performance of the real STOVL planes you keep insisting on them, why? STOBAR fighters perform better, your only answer is "but but, the Supreme Commander..." Put a couple of cable arrestors in that QE and you can operate real fighters for god's sake...
(2) Besides, I have explained more than 100 times that fighters do not need catapults. They are for tankers and AWACS. So STOVL fighters have zero to do with eliminating the need for catapults in RuN.

(1) And what is real performance?30 years ago of Yak 41? which could BTW be a decent fighter in 2-3 iterations,  no worse then MiG-29.  
Harrier? then compare  with A-4 Skyhook  or Super super etendard his contemporaries with similar weight size

BTW you seem to fail to  understand that there are no "real fighters" whatsoever. There are fighters that are either fulfilling client requirements or not. RuNavy has voiced their requirements, Royal Navy too. Both seem to be quite different than yours.  


(2) In perfect world where there is no restrictions in funding  and 80s/90s solutions I'd say you are right. Russia however has advanced tech and funding restrictions.
AWACS functionality is crucial.  Functionality can be implemented in may ways. AWACS needs a platform. Platform that has not been ever existing in Russia/Soviet  Union.
USA is the only country building carrier based AWACS.

Thus Russia has now a choice to invest years in very expensive and risky projects to build EMALS and AWACS platform of for a fraction of that build VSTOL drone or use a capble enough chopper chopper to act as AEW with C on ship. Having same result.  BTW Ka-60 has ceiling 6000m what gives you ~350km range AFAIK.

There are now no carrier based tankers in any navy.  Can you show me any not retired now? (oh yes in 80s/90s there were talking about 80s mindset).      

BTW lookat that  

You may laugh as much as you want but this was a very sensible approach and end design a much nicer one. Probably you ignore that Navy changed requirements already with the prototype half built so they had to change it with a aesthetically questionable result, but fact is, the engine in the CoG as Boeings proposal's has is the only way to keep the STVOL version close in performance to the CTOL one.

Aesthetically questionable resembles your avatar

BTW Not sure if you noticed. Its  T/M(TOW) is 1.13...

In fact after I have been trying (unknowing of the fundamentals of X-32 design and propulsion proposal) to go for a propulsion solution close to the CoG to get a STOVL with less performance loss, I ended up essentially with a X-32. And I have done several models I can tell you, but this was the best.
{}
<here was your drawing>

Cool so you are an aerospace engineer? respect. As for graphics - are you sure that this is not just a copy of evolutionary branch for Yak-41 design? So calle Shekhter's monster      

So there you have it, your hated X-32 is the result of STOVL requirements, I see a poetic irony in that, don't you?

cmon what made you think I dont like X-32?      

GarryB wrote:

try to focus this time: VVS classifies bot above as fighters and says they need at least 700 fighters. So you are corrector they are?

The VVS says a lot of things... do they take into account the needs of the VKKO and VMF and FA?

VVS is Air Force a part of  VKA (aerospace forces), it they say it is a fighter-bomber then you know better?

(1) in 2030 they wont be top, in 2040 hey will be obsolete.

So you keep claiming, but you are talking about 10 years in the future and I don't see anything the west is actually working on that makes these types obsolete yet....

and is this thread about LMFS or vintage MiGs? BTW oh wow incredible. Tempest or FAXX is better then refurbished 80s concept design? Russian AF doesn't seem to share your optimism tho. They calculate cool-headed options, not taking on emotionally you know.

Su-34+++
The fact is that you wont see an Su-34 with an all AAM loadout used as an interceptor... its primary mission is medium to long range strike.

as you say, sir. OF course you have long range radar and long range AAMs. But shooting down other fighters wont make you a fighter. You can perform defensive operations when needed though. Reliving you fighters then.



and below  Su-34 pilots are training air-air combat.

ekhm 6 piecs in till 2023? if it is so cheap and needed ? Doesnt look like to me.

12 Su-57s... so half as many ordered as the primary premiere Russian top tier stealth fighter... that is not as bad as you are suggesting.

There is a slight difference: in 2023 the second stage engine tests should be accomplished. MiG-35 state tests was accomplished AFAIK. Su-57 is at least 2 times more expensive and not so badly needed as small fighter. Yet RuAF ordered 2x as much.

(4) well that's my reasoning, you have limited resources. Thus you canot make all, MG-41, Skats, LMFS/VSTOL and MiG-35.

They wont even have a prototype MiG-41 before 2022-2023, and it will take longer for the LMFS/STOVL, so really it will only be MiG-35s in production... and likely new AESA radars for MiG-31s over the next few years...

I dont think they have anything new before 2030 frankly speaking. Mind then making a prototype and finalizing tests takes some time in Russia.  I dont see problems as long as money si in supply.

I very much disagree with your suggestion that a UCAV is just a flight simulator attached to a real aircraft and weapons and that it can be flown by anyone...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough  I m not saying you need to control flight but human is making a decision shoot or  not.

then why S-35 and Su-57 have supercruise? Typhoon,Rafale, F-22, Grippen too.

There is a price to pay to get supersonic speed, and for many drones such a price has little to no return...
Look at Skat... 800km/h max speed... why is it not hypersonic?

and why B-2, A-10 or Su-25and Tu-95 are not hypersonic?        There is simple explanation: Current drone generation  is  not about fighters but strike missions. Next gen will be autonomous. That's main differentiation between fighter generations.

politics (internal/external) -  economy - with dash of military requirements?

I am surprised they didn't buy the MiG-35 in the first place, it was the only one that matchd their budget and passed all their requirements...

Perhaps because during last  tender MiG-35 was not finished fighter and had enormous problems with quality? (vide: Algerian MiGs) + politics (also internal) of course.

so you have min 1,5 vs less then 2 blns. New fighter with weak production that needs to be restarted. Vs. fighter with better abilities and working production lines.

You provide numbers and then immediately set about fudging them to support your case, but what you ignore is that the MiG-35 is better than an Su-30, and should be compared with an Su-35... and the MiG-35 being half the price of the less capable Su-30 clearly shows why they have started production of the MiG-35 and are ending production of the Su-30...

They stated only about Su-30SM. There was no info about any MiG-35 procurement. Closing Su-30SM lines can simply mean that stopgaps are simply saturated. They have been talking about MiG-35 contract  in decent numbers 10 years or so.  And effect we see. 6 units.

are you missing a point  on purpose of you just dont understand? laws of physics didnt not change. Technology did.  In your opinion Armata is worse than T-72? Laws of physics for both are the same.

You are the one saying a hover tank needs to be built and it will be much better than a current tank because it can take off vertically... and all the obvious problems that would make such a design shit will be overcome with smart thinking and new technology.

Well in this case they had VTOL fighters and they were shit. They had newer models and they were cancelled too.

You are resilient to argument and  Getting emotional dont you?  Did any VSTOL dumped or cheated on you or what?      
Because USA failed to deliver ? and this is your strongest argument?        then pwnd.
BTW Yak-44 was cancelled y Navy too. Because it was crappy. And Preferred Ka-32 as better option. What about this?

The Harrier was not supersonic so the effect of vertical component of its performance was not that huge, the Yak-41 just didn't work... the lift jet arrangement meant it could not land vertically without an engine stall and crash... the problems were pretty fundamental and the design of the F-35 was pretty much all they could do to fix it, but it would have been rather better if it didn't have the requirement to be supersonic...

MiG-35 barely flew first years. Indians rejected is as  crap worse then French 4 times as expensive fighter. You again are mumbling mantra? F-35 is shit so Russian VSTOL have  to be as well. You must never have been working with requirements and client acceptance criteria.  Otherwise this would be pretty straight forwad.

BTW F-35 if is shit then of course because CATOBAR F-35 requirement. This was  restricting size and increasing weight . Secondly it was to be stealthy strike aircraft with large payload (more 15% higher then MiG-35) . So they paid the price.

RuN requirements AFAIK is fighter for AA combat and eventually anti-ship missions. Why Russia is to accept US criteria? because you say so? or Simon says        
And also very likely highly maneuverably drone. We live to see it yet.

EMALS is physics and materials science...
+++
Hell the technology could be combined with their new nuclear rocket propulsion space tug they are designing to capture space junk in orbit and accelerate it to burn up in the atmosphere...

whoa what an imagination! But lets get back to reality. Booth AWACS platform and EMALS is both risky, long and expensive project. But RuN should fund it just because you hate VSTOL? wow. It looks like RuN so far has chosen to develop top tech in VSTOL direction

Russia? 1-2? min 10 years of R&D, billions of rubles invested and outcome? 1 max 2 installations.

There would be two EMALs cat on each CVN they build so 4 and perhaps more

EMALS - is system not  a catapult. SO AFIAK is 1 EMALS per CVN.

The question now is why to invest in one piece of equipment 10-20% of new fighter programme? I am afraid that RuN doesnt share your care free interest for catapults.

Yet they have no cancelled the EMALS programme...

Cool, tell me then about newest progress with this regard?

BTW lookat that

What a load of crap... wonder why they didn't pick it....  BTW I have seen transport planes with shorter take off runs.

[/quote]

which models  precisely?

GarryB wrote:But in GD world if the STOVL fighter works then they can decide to build a small carrier and all the money spent on EMALS they will get back from the pixies...

Of course if the STOVL fighter is crap then they will need EMALs and a big carrier... so what he is saying is that by 2040 Russia might get their first CVN... depending on whether the STOVL works it will either be a 30K ton dwarf with no EMALs and no chance, or a 150K ton American money sink... absorbing all economic resources of Russia... and one EMALS system that wont work but it is paid for so they will carry it... even though it costs them an AWACS platform every time they try to take off.

Exactly, either dirt cheap or obscenely expensive 150 kT with nothing in between... I am the first to root for cost-effective solutions but RuN has expressed clearly their opinions in terms of sizes and equipment for their CVs. And I think they are already being quite reasonable with their ambitions, but they follow the lines of commonly known solutions: CVN, catapults, AWACS and respectable size of carrier. As said a catamaran design, ski jump for the fighters and very effective planes like the Su-57 could do a lot in terms of reduction in size and numbers but in the end you cannot fight a tank throwing stones...

They tried to do the same with the Yak-41 with those arm booms out the back with the tail surfaces on them, though it actually looks most like the Yak-36...

The Yak-41 moved the engine back a little and required two lift engines behind the cockpit... all three engines in AB obliterated runways like you would not believe...

Yeah, you need the engine as close to the CoG as possible in any case, but ideally you put it directly there and save the additional engines. Additional nozzles for control are necessary but the impact is way smaller.

Regarding the blast effects on the runways... not much to be done apart from reinforcing the surface. Using a fan is the solution to generate lift with cold, low speed air, but the downside is that you need a very big fan area... not really adequate for a supersonic fighter I think.

Don't be silly... GD is in love... a bit of make up... and a bit of vaseline on the camera lens... and a paper bag over her head and she is a real looker... with the lights off.

Have always been impressed with the capacity of Russian engineers to solve problems... but in this case I think this will be a real challenge.

As far as she is STOVL the rest can be worked out hahaha!

Gunship wrote:Hmm and  I'd appreciate your short advanced physics in layman's terms please:

No advanced physics at all... in regards of aeronautics I am 90% a layman too

(1) what does it mean extreme for you? is there mass and size in requirements? Had such Su-57?  Because if not then fulfilling requirements makes you to use specific technological solutions. Not the other way around. And no there is no rule fighter has to be compact.

Just look at how tightly built fighters are. A fighter needs to be very light and very aerodynamic, for obvious reasons. Dynamic air pressure at 2 M is huge as you can imagine. So basically every square centimeter in cross section needs to be justified. And every gram counts in terms of agility and range, with the aggravation that it induces a further weight creep due to the need of more powerful engines and reinforced structure. Fighter design is a business with very little headroom for weight and volume excesses, unlike say land or naval equipment and even beyond other aircraft, since they are intended to actively combat other fighters.

(2) As can you see F-35 without VSTOL ability is still bulky  and fat. Still looks poorly comparing to Su-57.  Perhaps you missed here that F-35 is much smaller and has less place for bomb bays regardless  on vtol or not .

IMO the basic shape is conditioned by the STOVL requirement and then aggravated by the payload ones. Can be wrong of course but I am convinced of that. Of course a smaller plane cannot have the same volume for internal payload, but the requirement in JSF is 2 x 2000 lb JDAM + 2 x AMRAAM, so slightly above 50% of what Su-57 can carry, this should be attainable with a light or medium fighter with way less cross sectional area and weight. Would have been enough with 1000 lb bombs for most jobs IMO but what do I know...

(3) Frankly speaking I got an impression payload and VLO is kind of fetish for you. Payload is important but mainly for bombing.  What is weight even 10xR-77+2xR-73 ->10x190 + 2x105kg = 2210kg. Well why  would you need 10 tons if not for bombing tasks.  Onyx ~3000kg, Kh-50 ~1600kg (Janes) and GZURsimilarly due same size as Kh-50 (Tu-22M3 revolver launcher).

No, no fetish at all. And VLO is something I am very wary of to be honest.

Payload is important of course, but IMO it is more important how far you can carry what load. Russian planes are also not record breakers in terms of payload (8 tons for the Flankers for instance, even in the huge Su-34). Important is though, that they are not going to reserve say 3 or 4 tons of that for EFTs, so those 8 tons are weapons. Of course that is not normally used, but a plane which is more capable in that regard can be more destructive to the enemy that one which is very limited in terms of payload.

Actually for fleet defense or ship countering tasks tell me why 5-6 tons shall be not enough?

I think it is ok but I doubt a plane which can only lift 5-6 tons in total could carry an Onix or Kinzhal. And those are extremely destabilising weapons as far as I can see. One single fighter with a Kinzhal under its belly is a serious risk for a CSG...

Oh so CATOBAR didn influence technical solutions and weight?  pls let me remain skeptical about this.
weight CTOL/CATOBAR  13,154kg/15,686 (wiki). Then please explain how CATOABR got 20% heavier comparing to CTOL?

CATOBAR has way bigger wingspan and fuel capacity, they tried to improve its bombing capacities within the limits imposed by the airframe. Maybe doing some research you can find a better example of plane in CTOL /STOBAR / CATOBAR versions to get the clean difference between those in terms of weight, but without the influence of role differences. Of course reinforcing the structure, putting wing fold and a special undercarriage can put some good 500-700 kg on an already apt plane but I doubt it is much more than that.

Never superior, always inferior  in  VSTOL category, isnt it?

 
Cannot see it otherwise due to inherent increase of weight and reduction of fuel load.

Depends what is a superior result for a customer : is it 20% more payload and 300% longer takeoff strip?

Have proven to you that Russian STOBAR fighters on a ski jump have shorter TO runs than a F-35B.

But I prefer to ask the question: why Russian Navy knowing much better then any of us, do still insists in VSTOL?

This is actually a good question. I have some theories but no hard conviction:
> Bring back Yakovlev and their STOVL know-how from the grave? Team is from I know already disbanded
> Give LHDs some offensive power? Looks a very expensive way to me for the low number of units to be manufactured
> Creation of a light fighter? No news of LMFS, technical difficulties to create commonality & effectiveness in both CTOL and STOVL variants
> Misinformation? Maybe but I have no way of knowing

All in all I think they are taking a look at this issue and that is OK, especially because they built up quite a lot of knowledge in this field and in fact wanted to use it in the programs that preceded PAK-FA. But I am not sure this will result in a new plane to be quit honest... I can be wrong of course. In fact I would love to see them coming up with a solution to the technical and economical issues that we are seeing.

(1) And what is real performance?

That of Yak, Harrier and F-35B as state of the art example, against Russian STOBAR fighters and feasible updates.

BTW you seem to fail to  understand that there are no "real fighters" whatsoever. There are fighters that are either fulfilling client requirements or not. RuNavy has voiced their requirements, Royal Navy too. Both seem to be quite different than yours.

Just a way of talking. Today only niche application of STOVL is naval fighters (and not in the well equipped carriers), that indicates that where a runway is available air forces know what is best.

Thus Russia has now a choice to invest years in very expensive and risky projects to build EMALS and AWACS platform of for a fraction of that build VSTOL drone or use a capble enough chopper chopper to act as AEW with C on ship

Unrelated issues, STOVL has nothing to do with AWACS. You can have STOBAR fighters and still use UAVS or helos to do the AEW role.

There are now no carrier based tankers in any navy.  Can you show me any not retired now? (oh yes in 80s/90s there were talking about 80s mindset).  lol1  lol1  lol1

MQ-25??

BTW Not sure if you noticed. Its  T/M(TOW) is 1.13...

What do you mean?

Cool so you are an aerospace engineer? respect. As for graphics - are you sure that this is not just a copy of evolutionary branch for Yak-41 design? So calle Shekhter's monster  respekt  respekt  respekt

Well that looks nice, it seems to be designed on the same principle of engine at the CoG and therefore the solutions are very similar. Didn't know it

And no, no aerospace engineer at all. Only using some common sense tools:
> Basic physics
> Compared configurations of existing planes and concepts
> Trusty principle that tow objects, for instance the engine and the cockpit, cannot be at the same place and at the same time

GarryB wrote:: The Yak-41 moved the engine back a little and required two lift engines behind the cockpit... all three engines in AB obliterated runways like you would not believe...

5 minutes of daily faith session. GB says os no proves are needed!

Have always been impressed with the capacity of Russian engineers to solve problems... but in this case I think this will be a real challenge.

i have no doubt about this.

Just look at how tightly built fighters are. A fighter needs to be very light and very aerodynamic, for obvious reasons. Dynamic air pressure at 2 M is huge as you can imagine. So basically every square centimeter in cross section needs to be justified. And every gram counts in terms of agility and range, with the aggravation that it induces a further weight creep due to the need of more powerful engines and reinforced structure. Fighter design is a business with very little headroom for weight and volume excesses

A. F-14, Su-57 with mass 18,5-195 tons, 20m long are tight light for obvious  reasons ? I wont mentions about maneuverability here. then OK. Otherwise your theory doesnt stand real life examples.

B.But of course new materials, new engines are alwasy needed. VSTOL project shall definitely help tehc progress.
.
C. Well fluid mechanics long ago solved dynamic pressure problem. No need for imagination here      

IMO the basic shape is conditioned by the STOVL requirement and then aggravated by the payload ones. Can be wrong of course but I am convinced of that. Of course a smaller plane cannot have the same volume for internal payload, but the requirement in JSF is 2 x 2000 lb JDAM + 2 x AMRAAM, so slightly above 50% of what Su-57 can carry, this should be attainable with a light or medium fighter with way less cross sectional area and weight. Would have been enough with 1000 lb bombs for most jobs IMO but what do I know...

could you please tell me which, of existing VLO fighters, did  you have in mind?      

they are not going to reserve say 3 or 4 tons of that for EFTs, so those 8 tons are weapons.

and what EFT is?

Actually for fleet defense or ship countering tasks tell me why 5-6 tons shall be not enough?

I think it is ok but I doubt a plane which can only lift 5-6 tons in total could carry an Onix or Kinzhal. And those are extremely destabilising weapons as far as I can see. One single fighter with a Kinzhal under its belly is a serious risk for a CSG...

So far kinzhal platforms are MiG-31 then Tu-22M3. Which of them precisely would you like to see in deck version?        Hint: Russian is developing airborne only Kh-50 (stealth subsonic) and GZUR (hypersonic) with 1,500km range. Jane's speculates that Kh-50's weigh tis 1,600kg.  GZUR has same dimensions.


Talking about payload of existing STOBAR fighters.
Russian wiki...................Payload kg
MiG-29k.........................4500
MiG-35...........................6000
Su-33.............................6500

Maybe doing some research you can find a better example of plane in CTOL /STOBAR / CATOBAR versions to get the clean difference between those in terms of weight, but without the influence of role differences. Of course reinforcing the structure, putting wing fold and a special undercarriage can put some good 500-700 kg on an already apt plane but I doubt it is much more than that.

there is only 30 Rafale there are no  other CATOBAR navalized fighters in the world.  So how do you want to prove your theory? So far of one model we have significant mass increase.

Never superior, always inferior  in  VSTOL category, isnt it?

 Cannot see it otherwise due to inherent increase of weight and reduction of fuel load.

So? 20 vs 200 or 300%?

Depends what is a superior result for a customer : is it 20% more payload and 300% longer takeoff strip?

Have proven to you that Russian STOBAR fighters on a ski jump have shorter TO runs than a F-35B.[/quote]

Russian wiki:
Yak 141:
STOL st.....................120m w/o ski jump, with deck landing gear arresters
......................................60-80m
same+62deg nozz...........6m
Thrust............................152 kN
empty weight...................11,650 kg
Range.(STOL)...................2000km

MiG-29K:  
Takeoff strip.................110–195 m (with ski jump )
thrust...............................2x90kN
empty weight....................13700kg
Ferry range:
at high altitude:
without fuel tanks..............2000 km

So what precisely did you want prove?      
6m vs 195m? aaaaaaaaaaaa that  it's only 3100%




What I've found about USN
USA: shortest F-18 take off I've found is 500m/. F-35 VTOL is 200m ?

But I prefer to ask the question: why Russian Navy knowing much better then any of us, do still insists in VSTOL?

This is actually a good question. I have some theories but no hard conviction:

perhaps when you reread my data above you can share your theories. As long as it is not "takeoff  lanes were destroyed. No proves are needed"
I am fine with views different than mine.

> Bring back Yakovlev and their STOVL know-how from the grave? Team is from I know already disbanded
> Give LHDs some offensive power? Looks a very expensive way to me for the low number of units to be manufactured
> Creation of a light fighter? No news of LMFS, technical difficulties to create commonality & effectiveness in both CTOL and STOVL variants
> Misinformation? Maybe but I have no way of knowing

All in all I think they are taking a look at this issue and that is OK, especially because they built up quite a lot of knowledge in this field and in fact wanted to use it in the programs that preceded PAK-FA. But I am not sure this will result in a new plane to be quit honest... I can be wrong of course. In fact I would love to see them coming up with a solution to the technical and economical issues that we are seeing.

Yak's team after 30 years?        all experienced either passed away or are retired. But docs remained.
The main mystery for me now is size. Will VSTOL be light or "relatively light"  and not small really.  Dependent on requirements. All 6th gen requirements are also about range...

Numbers? show me any new fighter build in numbers after cold war? Let me remind you that one new fighter comes to mas production Su-30s/Mig-29s will be retiring. I would not worry about numbers.

Thus Russia has now a choice to invest years in very expensive and risky projects to build EMALS and AWACS platform of for a fraction of that build VSTOL drone or use a capble enough chopper chopper to act as AEW with C on ship

Unrelated issues, STOVL has nothing to do with AWACS. You can have STOBAR fighters and still use UAVS or helos to do the AEW role.

funny because in last osty you stated thet tankers and AWACS need Catapult       But ok I agree with second part of sentence.

There are now no carrier based tankers in any navy.  Can you show me any not retired now? (oh yes in 80s/90s there were talking about 80s mindset).  lol1  lol1  lol1

MQ-25??

are we in late 2020s? if not you're wrong.

BTW Not sure if you noticed. Its  T/M(TOW) is 1.13...

What do you mean?

MTOW:.......17,200kg
Thrust:.......191kN

Cool so you are an aerospace engineer? respect. As for graphics - are you sure that this is not just a copy of evolutionary branch for Yak-41 design? So calle Shekhter's monster  respekt  respekt  respekt

Well that looks nice, it seems to be designed on the same principle of engine at the CoG and therefore the solutions are very similar. Didn't know it

That's precisely how Buyan copied Columbia Shuttle      

Just to address inaccuracies:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:A. F-14, Su-57 with mass 18,5-195 tons, 20m long are tight light for obvious  reasons ? I wont mentions about maneuverability here. then OK. Otherwise your theory doesnt stand real life examples.

What have you drunk? Heavy fighter is bigger but still built with extreme requirements of weight and volume/cross sectional area. It does not mean it must be small, it is all relative to the size and hence capacities (fuel, payload and avionics)

C. Well fluid mechanics long ago solved dynamic pressure problem. No need for imagination here      

Not talking about imagination but about resistance of the structures and materials. For instance Su-57 was allegedly adjusted to max 2 M in order to avoid needing reinforcement of the keels.

could you please tell me which, of existing VLO fighters, did  you have in mind?      

Sorry, have no clue what you mean... the original question was why F-35 was so fat compared to Su-57 and I answered, "because of STOVL requirements". What has VLO to do with this?

and what EFT is?

External Fuel Tank

So far kinzhal platforms are MiG-31 then Tu-22M3. Which of them precisely would you like to see in deck version?        Hint: Russian is developing airborne only Kh-50 (stealth subsonic) and GZUR (hypersonic) with 1,500km range. Jane's speculates that Kh-50's weigh tis 1,600kg.  GZUR has same dimensions.

None. As discussed before, either a Flanker variant or a naval Su-57 would be good candidates IMO. If that does not work, maybe a smaller version of the Kinzhal can be developed, or maybe the Zirkon or GZUR. In any case to have any of these air launched makes too much sense to be ignored.

Talking about payload of existing STOBAR fighters.
Russian wiki...................Payload kg
MiG-29k.........................4500
MiG-35...........................6000
Su-33.............................6500

Fine, what are you trying to prove? I have already said that this payload capacity is ok for me. None of them carries a missile like Onyx or Kinzhal, so no contradiction with my statements...

there is only 30 Rafale there are no  other CATOBAR navalized fighters in the world.  So how do you want to prove your theory? So far of one model we have significant mass increase.

750 kg increase, and this is ready for catapult launching (stronger front gear leg than STOBAR). This is what I said:
"Of course reinforcing the structure, putting wing fold and a special undercarriage can put some good 500-700 kg on an already apt plane but I doubt it is much more than that."
Sorry was 50 kg off...  

MiG-29 empty 11 tons
MiG-29K empty... also 11 tons

So? 20 vs 200 or 300%?

Care explaining?

Russian wiki:
Yak 141:
STOL st.....................120m w/o ski jump, with deck landing gear arresters
......................................60-80m
same+62deg nozz...........6m
Thrust............................152 kN
empty weight...................11,650 kg
Range.(STOL)...................2000km

MiG-29K:  
Takeoff strip.................110–195 m (with ski jump )
thrust...............................2x90kN
empty weight....................13700kg
Ferry range:
at high altitude:
without fuel tanks..............2000 km

So what precisely did you want prove?      
6m vs 195m? aaaaaaaaaaaa that  it's only 3100%

Care looking at your own data?
Fully loaded TO is 100 m in the MiG-29 and close to 100 m in the Yak if I am not wrong. You don't put all that crap for vertical lift inside a plane to spare 20 meters TO run when you already need almost 100 anyway, it is simply ludicrous. And in any case I should carefully check that data on the Yak for TO weight but given is a dead branch I am not going to do it. Have shown you most modern example with the F-35B and also what an equivalent STOBAR could do. Result: embarrassing failure for the STOVL solution to provide any significant advantage in terms of TO run when carrying combat significant fuel and weapons loads.

What I've found about USN
USA: shortest F-18 take off I've found is 500m/. F-35 VTOL is 200m ?

Boeing themselves have said the F-18 would be able to take off essentially fully loaded from the ski jump of the Vikramaditya. Don't know where did you take your data from but they look bad...
From paralay I saw this regarding PAK-FA. I have to give credit to eehnie here because the information reported by him regarding the TO run exists, even when the quote looks all together too optimistic:

"...So to test this spring (2013) when fully loaded fuel and mass-dimensional layouts of the arms of the 4th Board (054) took off from the 310 meters, reached a cruising speed of 2135 km/h and the maximum - 2610 km/h, while there was also the potential for overclocking, and also climbed to 24 of 300 meters - more not allowed"

perhaps when you reread my data above you can share your theories. As long as it is not "takeoff  lanes were destroyed. No proves are needed"
I am fine with views different than mine.

You will be fine when we all give up  

Yak's team after 30 years?        all experienced either passed away or are retired. But docs remained.

Team means some old guys pass their knowledge to young guys instead of just passing away...

The main mystery for me now is size. Will VSTOL be light or "relatively light"  and not small really.  Dependent on requirements. All 6th gen requirements are also about range...

You went crazy because the Su-57 was too big for a carrier, I hope they make the STOVL smaller at least!  

Numbers? show me any new fighter build in numbers after cold war? Let me remind you that one new fighter comes to mas production Su-30s/Mig-29s will be retiring. I would not worry about numbers.

If they build only 50 you should worry and MoD too...

funny because in last osty you stated thet tankers and AWACS need Catapult       But ok I agree with second part of sentence.

What is an osty?
And what is funny at all? With or without STOVL you will need catapults if you want AWACS and tankers as they are today. STOVL solves nothing in that regard.

are we in late 2020s? if not you're wrong.

Are we in the school yard? MQ-25 is notably more advanced than your STOVL

MTOW:.......17,200kg
Thrust:.......191kN

And what do you mean with this? That the plane has no payload capability? What is empty weight? Fuel? Payload? Apart from being a rushed prototype so essentially worthless for assessing such parameters in the final design.

perhaps when you reread my data above you can share your theories. As long as it is not "takeoff  lanes were destroyed. No proves are needed"
I am fine with views different than mine.

You will be fine when we all give up  

Ohhh, It would be so ill-mannered if then I stay in denial      

The main mystery for me now is size. Will VSTOL be light or "relatively light"  and not small really.  Dependent on requirements. All 6th gen requirements are also about range...

You went crazy because the Su-57 was too big for a carrier, I hope they make the STOVL smaller at least!  

What about building Su-57 in VSTOL version?       W/T 1,36 (1.16 for MTOW). all you need is V ability      

LMFS wrote:Heavy fighter is bigger but still built with extreme requirements of weight and volume/cross sectional area. It does not mean it must be small, it is all relative to the size and hence capacities (fuel, payload and avionics)

you know it's sounds funny because i already said exactly the same thing couple of posts ago.  discussion was like
A me: you can build maneuverable VSTOL fighter.  
B you: fighter must be small. VSTOL is not..
C me:  size doesn't  matter as long as requirements are met. In order to meet them like size, agility,payload you design technical solutions. (i.e. to get agile  fighter not VLO bobm truck)
D you: nonono must be small because this fighter design business....
E me: examples of maneuverable and large fighters
F you: relatively small (so can wight 20 tons).

So please tell me where is a contradiction  between  C and F ?

C. Well fluid mechanics long ago solved dynamic pressure problem. No need for imagination here      

Not talking about imagination but about resistance of the structures and materials. For instance Su-57 was allegedly adjusted to max 2 M in order to avoid needing reinforcement of the keels.

ekhm and what should it prove? Only that RuAF is ok with such speed and nothing to do with pressure.   MiG-31  can fly 2,83 (with newest updates according to zveza tv 3.2 ) Ma, Su-35 2.25  so if requirements from AF is fly high and fast its gonna fly high and fast,  Of of course if it was changed (unlikely to me)

could you please tell me which, of existing VLO fighters, did  you have in mind?      

Sorry, have no clue what you mean... the original question was why F-35 was so fat compared to Su-57 and I answered, "because of STOVL requirements". What has VLO to do with this?

then please check your words: F-35 is fat  due to VSTOL and not being bomb truck. CTOL F-35 would be leaner with bigger bomb bays. Me: OK so then I love to see this leanVLO  fighter of this size with internal bay with larger volume and being leaner than F-35.  got rela examples of such VLO fighter with size about F-35 and leaner design.

Simply because
Yak-141 without VLO was lean. IT didnt need any bomb bays.  Bomb bays are either for bombers or  VLO fighters/strike aircraft.  

 Hint: Russian is developing airborne only Kh-50 (stealth subsonic) and GZUR (hypersonic) with 1,500km range. Jane's speculates that Kh-50's weigh tis 1,600kg.  GZUR has same dimensions.

None. As discussed before, either a Flanker variant or a naval Su-57 would be good candidates IMO. If that does not work, maybe a smaller version of the Kinzhal can be developed, or maybe the Zirkon or GZUR. In any case to have any of these air launched makes too much sense to be ignored.

Flanker?  cough cough Su-33 has 6,500kg max payload. 6 ton is too small, didnt you say? or perhaps 6t payload  sucks only for VSTOL?      
We can of course multiple possible solutions. Whats more many of them can deliver acceptable outcome. But Russian MoD used Occam's razor and simply developed missiles that:

1) size and weight permits them to be used but in bomb bay fo Tu-22

2) and light enough to be carried by smaller fighters (like VSTOL?)

3)  GZUR second phase is to be 12-14Ma

IMHO: Kinzhal is ingenious  stopgap. i don't think it was planned for years. It was just seizing of opportunity.  You have iskander tech, you have MiG-31 and you need theater albm. GZUR, Avangard was planned long time tho.

I have already said that this payload capacity is ok for me. None of them carries a missile like Onyx or Kinzhal, so no contradiction with my statements...

great, glad we agree. VSTOL and  CTOL capacity can be easily the same.      

MiG-29 empty 11 tons
MiG-29K empty... also 11 tons

My bad,it was too late. We've agreed that in this regard wiki is wrong.

So what precisely did you want prove?      
6m vs 195m? aaaaaaaaaaaa that  it's only 3100%...3150%.

Fully loaded TO is 100 m in the MiG-29 and close to 100 m in the Yak if I am not wrong.

[/quote]

No, you' re wrong , you dont seem to be reading my data at all. Let me help you (all data Russian wiki -MiG MTOW/TO)
https://ak-12.livejournal.com/62776.html

Fighter.....................Takeoff.w/o.help....................Takeoff..with help.(ski-jump or landing gear arresters)
MiG-29k................... ........?..................................195m......MTOW
Yak-141....................120.m......................................6m......MTOW


(*)
Take..off.(normal mission)...........load.................strip length w/help
MiG-29k...................................3000.kg............110m
Yak-141...................................2600.kg...............6m


..............................Range by STOL...............internal..fuel
MiG-29k...................2000km........................4400.kg
Yak-141...................2000km........................4750.kg

Remark: MiG-29k data refers to Russian 2010 contracted version (i.e. after 28 since years of development) . Give 28 years for trail-error development and perhaps compare then?

*-- (synthesized  from different sources you can find better sources, mostly AFAIK fo rAAd mission). You can ignore at will)
"normal mission" is what  I've found is Russian sources not specifying what does it mean.

You don't put all that crap for vertical lift inside a plane to spare 20 meters TO run when you already need almost 100 anyway, it is simply ludicrous. And in any case I should carefully check that data on the Yak for TO weight but given is a dead branch I am not going to do it. Have shown you most modern example with the F-35B and also what an equivalent STOBAR could do. Result: embarrassing failure for the STOVL solution to provide any significant advantage in terms of TO run when carrying combat significant fuel and weapons loads.

Of course you can contest Russian wiki just because of your prejudice.  In the meantime

1) F-35 u built to US requirements as size restricted bomb truck.
2) Russians have been so far requiring fighters as primary function. We do focus in this forum on Russian approach and requirements. Look at tables with parameters' comparison. MiG-29K and Yak-141.  Fuel weight is similar, range equal, takeoff VSTOL (in STOL mode using ski jump/gear arresters) is 3150% shorter for Russian VSTOL. The price was  0,58 max payload. But Yak-141 wasn't even last model then. Engine was weaker by 20% comparing to MiG.

Dont you think that with data I provided Russian gave green light to fund new development?       The new digital control tech,materials engines...

USA: shortest F-18 take off I've found is 500m/. F-35 VTOL is 200m ?

Boeing themselves have said the F-18 would be able to take off essentially fully loaded from the ski jump of the Vikramaditya. Don't know where did you take your data from but they look bad...

Yup F-18 did start from some Russian sources, during USN/Indian Navy meeting, but with MTOW. But best would be to check Indian sources tho.      



Well I believe that Su-57 can have  IMHO 350m STOL takeoff, large wings, low wing load, large angle of attack due flaps/LERX, TVC) +T/W..1.36.
This can be really helpful in this case but... surface of airfield? destroyed same like  Yak-141 or in both cases no destruction?        

Wing load (MTOW)
Su-57...............394 кг...(min 317 in en wiki)
MiG-29k............533 кг
F-35A...............745 kg/m²

"...So to test this spring (2013) when fully loaded fuel and mass-dimensional layouts of the arms of the 4th Board (054) took off from the 310 meters, reached a cruising speed of 2135 km/h and the maximum - 2610 km/h, while there was also the potential for overclocking, and also climbed to 24 of 300 meters - more not allowed"

This was referring to? sounds interesting      

Yak's team after 30 years?        all experienced either passed away or are retired. But docs remained.

Team means some old guys pass their knowledge to young guys instead of just passing away...

Passing away and passing docs is not contradicting. But hand son experience you cannot transfer you younger gen.

Numbers? show me any new fighter build in numbers after cold war? Let me remind you that one new fighter comes to mas production Su-30s/Mig-29s will be retiring. I would not worry about numbers.

If they build only 50 you should worry and MoD too...

MoD already planned this in, advance. Nobody should worry. VSTOL  unlike MiG-35 is being designed by MoD.

you will need catapults if you want AWACS and tankers as they are today. STOVL solves nothing in that regard.

1) why would you need sew approach anything?  as it is today (i,e, since  80s) ?  
2) wrong, VSTOL is all you need,
3) in Russia's case catapult solve nothing. Unless they decide to follow US 70s solutions.  

are we in late 2020s? if not you're wrong.

Are we in the school yard? MQ-25 is notably more advanced than your STOVL

(1) MQ-25 is not active now Answering your original question. no there are no active carrier based tankers.

(2) It's so sweet when you are comparing things with different requirements. You dont seem understand what are requirements and how product is being accepted.  US requiremnts have nothing to do with Russian ones.
(3) Using your logic: MQ-25 has no electrical engines nor cannot land in Siberian forest glade to rescue a firefighter.  So no it is not more advanced.

This discussion got beyond ridiculous, you don't even understand what I say and keep twisting my words.

Regarding the Yak, is heavier empty than the MiG-29K and has a MTOW 5 tons lower, does it make any sense to discuss which can take off fully loaded in shorter space at all???

You insist the Yak could take fully loaded in vertical with the same remaining range than a STOBAR fighter and equivalent payload, only this is false, because its payload is three tons less than the MiG and because vertical take off is extremely costly in terms of fuel and limiting in terms of weight. Would like to see the link where this capacity is stated for the Yak, you did not provide it, only a link that (as usual lately) only contradicts your take and states openly than both Su-33 and MiG-29K with updated engines can take off fully loaded from the short positions.... based on the same simulation program I already provided with essentially the same assumptions and same conclusions... bravo!  

All this discussion based on false data and false assumptions, besides the serious concerns about the safety and feasibility of the concept and overall worse by a margin dynamical parameters, from speed to altitude to climb rate etc. Really, I give up discussing with somebody which does not understand that two engines ONLY for vertical lift have a volume and a weight to account for. Do not share your magical way of thinking that somehow if you wish it very strongly the Russian engineers will find a way to dodge physics. And really do not understand what is the problem in a big vessel to have 100 m TO run with a ski jump

mack8 wrote:I don't know if this is wishful thinking from my part, but here is what has been released from MiG. Is this the first glimpe of the LMFS project?


From bmpd:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2396643.html

PS: Unfortunately, perhaps it's just a notional nose model of T-50, the image comes from this video, see at 22:15 minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgnyb-pnsw0

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1495p125-mikoyan-lmfs#186964

LMFS wrote:Any idea to what this model can be? Definitely looks like a 5G light fighter from MiG...

same image with 20 months difference...

(1) what does it mean extreme for you? is there mass and size in requirements? Had such Su-57? Because if not then fulfilling requirements makes you to use specific technological solutions. Not the other way around. And no there is no rule fighter has to be compact.

Actually there is... look at twin engined fighters of WWII... and you will see that with propeller driven aircraft two engines is not so efficient.

For the same reason there are no three or four engined fighters in service today... in fact, I have not looked to be sure, but the only three engined fighter I know of was the Yak-41... and it was cancelled.

(2) As can you see F-35 without VSTOL ability is still bulky and fat. Still looks poorly comparing to Su-57. Perhaps you missed here that F-35 is much smaller and has less place for bomb bays regardless on vtol or not .

The external shape is unified, so the STOVL model needed room for a lift fan in the front... so they all have that shape, but the conventional models don't actually have the fan so they have more internal space for fuel.

Actually for fleet defense or ship countering tasks tell me why 5-6 tons shall be not enough?

You were the one claiming that the F-35 was superior because it could carry so much... except that it can't without giving up stealth.

But I prefer to ask the question: why Russian Navy knowing much better then any of us, do still insists in VSTOL?

They might want a long endurance subsonic STOVL cheap fighter that operates very close to ships, that could also do anti sub work with dipping sonars or whatever...

(1) And what is real performance?30 years ago of Yak 41? which could BTW be a decent fighter in 2-3 iterations, no worse then MiG-29.

No it could not... having three jet engines directing afterburning super hot air directly at the ground beneath the Yak-41 meant no ordinance or external fuel tanks on the body of the aircraft... and its rather small wing had four weapon hard points... not to mention there is no way for it to land or take off vertically without hot exhaust gas from entering those big air intakes at the front and stalling the engine/s which in a hover are fatal.

Replacing the two lift jets with a main engine powered fan was the solution that was never adopted on the Yak-41 because it would require a complete redesign... it was implemented on the F-35... but the volume requirements would much better suit a subsonic aircraft that does not need to be super slim and aerodynamic.

VVS is Air Force a part of VKA (aerospace forces), it they say it is a fighter-bomber then you know better?

https://www.rt.com/news/375349-russia-mig-fighter-jet/

According to Bondarev, flight tests of the new fighter are expected to be completed in summer this year, right after which a contract to purchase 30 MiG-35 jets will be concluded between the Mikoyan corporation and the Russian Defense Ministry. "Then in a short while we will replace the whole fleet of lightweight fighters with such jets," he added, saying there are plans to purchase no less than 170 MiG-35 planes.

There is a slight difference: in 2023 the second stage engine tests should be accomplished. MiG-35 state tests was accomplished AFAIK. Su-57 is at least 2 times more expensive and not so badly needed as small fighter. Yet RuAF ordered 2x as much.

So you are assuming they are buying 6 because they don't actually want it... then why buy any at all?

WTF are they going to do with 6 planes if all the rest are going to be Sukhois?

You sound like one of those trolls that said because only 12 Su-57s have been ordered it is a failure and that is all they will buy... pathetic.

If they are only buying 6 because they want to create an export market and don't want the MiG-35 are they doing the same with the Su-57 and its 12 airframes ordered... and if it is different how is it different?

I dont think they have anything new before 2030 frankly speaking.
Mind then making a prototype and finalizing tests takes some time in Russia.

Hahahahahaha... of course... even nothing means continuing with MiG-29s in service is better than a MiG-35... So why bother with ever putting anything at all into service?

And in the west 6th gen super planes will just instantly appear... I mean look at how quickly Europe got those 5th gen fighters into service... only in Russia things take time... of course maybe if the F-35 had taken a little longer it might actually be a better aircraft...

There is simple explanation: Current drone generation is not about fighters but strike missions. Next gen will be autonomous. That's main differentiation between fighter generations.

Bullshit. First generation fighters were autonomous... as are second and third and fourth and fifth... or were they remote controlled too?

Perhaps because during last tender MiG-35 was not finished fighter and had enormous problems with quality? (vide: Algerian MiGs) + politics (also internal) of course.

Now pulling stuff from your ass... the Algerian MiGs were not MiG-35s and the fact that the Russian AF is currently using the MiG-29SMTs they rejected suggests there was nothing at all wrong with them.

They rejected the MiGs because Sukhoi offered Su-30s for the same price.

Su-35 needed a lot of changes after experience in Syria... was it a finished fighter when it entered Russian service?

They have been talking about MiG-35 contract in decent numbers 10 years or so. And effect we see. 6 units.

They have been talking about the MFS for decades and what do we have... an order for 12.

You are resilient to argument and Getting emotional dont you?

When you have no answer you get personal don't you...

Did any VSTOL dumped or cheated on you or what?

It is like the American dream... looks good on paper, and makes all sorts of promises, but when you look into it you find it is all smoke and mirrors and in the end... bullshit.

Because USA failed to deliver ? and this is your strongest argument? Suspect Suspect Suspect then pwnd.

The US had access to Yaks designs and technology... they had to buy it because no one else had engine technology that would allow a 20 ton thrust turbojet engine to direct its thrust 95 degrees off axis and they had to buy that from Yakovlev... they also looked at their experience with lift jets and took their ideas on main engine powered lift fans... and with all their money and all the brains of the Russians they still fucked up.

What they should have done was have two different types... a STOVL fat subsonic aircraft like a buccaneer that can take off from anywhere that can take a vertical 20 ton thrust blast of AB... (ie aircraft carriers with heat resistant surfaces, and airfields with heat resistant matts put down) the lift fan can be angled back slightly to prevent hot air coming in the front intakes... and a slim stealthy F-16 type supersonic platform... and it would have all been quicker and cheaper...

But they were dumb and tried to have everything in one...

BTW Yak-44 was cancelled y Navy too. Because it was crappy. And Preferred Ka-32 as better option. What about this?

The Yak-44 was never actually cancelled, but when there was no catapult equipped large carrier developed they never needed the Yak-44... it would never work on a Kuznetsov sized ship without a catapult, so it was not continued... which is not the same as cancelled... which is what happened to the Yak-41 because there was no way to fix it without an enormous redesign... they used lift turbojets because they were compact... a fan would require a much fatter nose area which would have killed supersonic aerodynamics and required a complete redesign... no funding for that.

Even the Yak-43 was killed by this because a bigger main engine didn't solve the problem...

MiG-35 barely flew first years. Indians rejected is as crap worse then French 4 times as expensive fighter.

Indians passed it, but chose the Rafale because they didn't want an all Russian fighter fleet... they actually wanted domestic production of the Mirage 2000, but France refused.

F-35 is shit so Russian VSTOL have to be as well. You must never have been working with requirements and client acceptance criteria. Otherwise this would be pretty straight forwad.

Have a good look at the Yak-43 drawing... no models, but the drawing looks a lot like the F-35... do you think it is an accident?

The F-35 is basically a Yak-43 but made much more expensive because it is three different types instead of just a STOVL like it is supposed to be.

BTW F-35 if is shit then of course because CATOBAR F-35 requirement. This was restricting size and increasing weight . Secondly it was to be stealthy strike aircraft with large payload (more 15% higher then MiG-35) . So they paid the price.

But if there is no penalty to STOVL why even bother with CATOBAR models... why not just make them all STOVL and they can operate anywhere....

Booth AWACS platform and EMALS is both risky, long and expensive project.

But STOVL is a home run... already in the bag...

But RuN should fund it just because you hate VSTOL? wow. It looks like RuN so far has chosen to develop top tech in VSTOL direction

You make it sound like there is no funding for AWACS or EMALS... and they hate STOVL too. Otherwise Putin would not have had to step in... they said they want a carrier with slightly more capacity than the Kuznetsov... doesn't sound like they want a small STOVL carrier...

Cool, tell me then about newest progress with this regard?

Don't be a I don't have any more access to secret Russian stuff than you do... and even if I did, I would not post it on the internet just to prove you wrong.

which models precisely?

AN-2...

Yeah, you need the engine as close to the CoG as possible in any case, but ideally you put it directly there and save the additional engines. Additional nozzles for control are necessary but the impact is way smaller.

But the problem there is that having the main engine nozzle at the CG means you need lots of fuel tanks in the rear booms and along the length of the aircraft so as you use up fuel the CG does not shift... there is a radar and a pilot in the front, so you need stuff in the back to balance that out all the time and it can't be fuel or you wont be able to use it without losing CG balance... you need lots of fuel tanks so you can pump around the fuel to control the CG as you use it up.

The other problem is that the large powerful single engine basically gets thrust vector up and down but not sideways because the fuselage extends past it... so limiting any flight advantage of having TVC engine of great power...

Using a fan is the solution to generate lift with cold, low speed air, but the downside is that you need a very big fan area... not really adequate for a supersonic fighter I think.

The fan solution works up front, but at the back of the aircraft with the main engine that powers that fan it will be blasting runway material all over the place...

As far as she is STOVL the rest can be worked out hahaha!

STOVL is easy... it is the Harrier... it has been done already... the problem occurs when you demand supersonic flight and stealth and you just make it too hard to get anything worth having.

A Harrier is a STOVL Buccaneeer... if you took the Rolls Royce engine model Pegasus with a big long engine like a NK-32 variant and take air near the front with side nozzles blowing down near the front of the aircraft and one big 25 ton thrust nozzle at the rear where the main engine blows air down you should be able to get an interesting aircraft because the front nozzles will be cold air, which can be angled slightly backwards to stop the main jet exhaust of hot air getting into the main intakes...

But you are basically designing a whole new engine, and internal carriage of weapons means it is going to be a big fighter that would really struggle to be supersonic...

And it will still only be usable with heat resistant tiles... ie on your carrier only... it could not fly to a land airstrip and land except conventionally on a very long runway...

No advanced physics at all... in regards of aeronautics I am 90% a layman too

I am 80% layman, 40% mathematician, 30% superhero, and 20% bullshit artist

I think it is ok but I doubt a plane which can only lift 5-6 tons in total could carry an Onix or Kinzhal. And those are extremely destabilising weapons as far as I can see. One single fighter with a Kinzhal under its belly is a serious risk for a CSG...

I don't think air borne Onyx would be more than 2.5-3 tons and I would expect the same of the Zircon...

there is only 30 Rafale there are no other CATOBAR navalized fighters in the world.

MiG-29/33, and Su-27/33

That's precisely how Buyan copied Columbia Shuttle

Just showing your ignorance here... Buran had the same external shape as the US space shuttle, because NASA spent 2 billion dollars researching and testing thousands of different shapes and designs and came up with one that was good.

Buran copied the shape but was a totally different design... it was a glider that sat on a big rocket, the US shuttle was more like a C-130 transport with an enormous external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters to get it into space.

Soviet design was vastly superior, yet simple rocket was superior to both when it comes to taking people to and from a space station.

Ironic it was called the space shuttle because that was its least effective and efficient use.

Yak-141 without VLO was lean. IT didnt need any bomb bays. Bomb bays are either for bombers or VLO fighters/strike aircraft.

It needed to be lean to be supersonic... which is why they went for lift jets instead of a lift fan...

The result is the equivalent of an Su-25 and a MiG-29K sat on their tail and directing the max thrust of their engines at the runway for a vertical take off... the two lift engines on the Yak-41 are 4.5 ton thrust each, which is what the Su-25s engines are... and two 9 ton thrust engines would put 18 tons of thrust directly down... which is comparable to the 20 tons thrust of the R79 main engine of the Yak-41...

PS: Unfortunately, perhaps it's just a notional nose model of T-50, the image comes from this video, see at 22:15 minute

If it is a nose model for the T-50 then why does it have a MiG emblem on its side?

GarryB wrote:But if there is no penalty to STOVL why even bother with CATOBAR models... why not just make them all STOVL and they can operate anywhere....

This is the elephant in the room but denial is powerful. Reality is only fighters with STOVL design are for LHDs or lightly equipped carriers. Air forces and navies with money use CTOL and CATOBAR/STOBAR when they could all be using STOVL with the same price and performance... it is unreal

Yeah, you need the engine as close to the CoG as possible in any case, but ideally you put it directly there and save the additional engines. Additional nozzles for control are necessary but the impact is way smaller.

But the problem there is that having the main engine nozzle at the CG means you need lots of fuel tanks in the rear booms and along the length of the aircraft so as you use up fuel the CG does not shift... there is a radar and a pilot in the front, so you need stuff in the back to balance that out all the time and it can't be fuel or you wont be able to use it without losing CG balance... you need lots of fuel tanks so you can pump around the fuel to control the CG as you use it up.

The other problem is that the large powerful single engine basically gets thrust vector up and down but not sideways because the fuselage extends past it... so limiting any flight advantage of having TVC engine of great power...

I don't see this worse as conventional planes. In fact the heaviest compact component is the engine, being at the CoG is not bad at all. Weight at the nose needs to be structurally balanced, and nowadays radars (more when GaN comes) are not as big heavy as in the older days.

Don't know the details about it but I guess any plane loaded with tons and tons of fuel and weapons needs to address on flight balancing and trimming, maybe you have data about this...

Of course an engine at the CoG means many other restrictions:
> Weapons bays cannot be placed easily. In the proposal above they would be at the sides of the engine, but would only be capable for AAMs. If bigger ordnance is needed then cross sectional area should increase quite a bit.
> All the way backwards needs to be cleared (loss of volume and increased of wetted area or bad area ruling or increased weight and complexity as in X-32). And besides, protected against high temperatures
> TVC cannot be deflected upwards and depending on the design, also not to the sides. And of course TVC at the CoG does not produce force arms for rotation but rather transversal movement...

Using a fan is the solution to generate lift with cold, low speed air, but the downside is that you need a very big fan area... not really adequate for a supersonic fighter I think.

The fan solution works up front, but at the back of the aircraft with the main engine that powers that fan it will be blasting runway material all over the place...

Electrical propulsion should be an option, but fighters are heavy equipment and very tightly built. Not sure this will solve the problem in the current technological level. Would be interesting to know what plasma actuators could be capable of...

STOVL is easy... it is the Harrier... it has been done already... the problem occurs when you demand supersonic flight and stealth and you just make it too hard to get anything worth having.

A Harrier is a STOVL Buccaneeer... if you took the Rolls Royce engine model Pegasus with a big long engine like a NK-32 variant and take air near the front with side nozzles blowing down near the front of the aircraft and one big 25 ton thrust nozzle at the rear where the main engine blows air down you should be able to get an interesting aircraft because the front nozzles will be cold air, which can be angled slightly backwards to stop the main jet exhaust of hot air getting into the main intakes...

First developments of the Pegasus had one nozzle at the back and not two, do not know why this was abandoned since it may have allowed for an afterburning version and hence maybe a supersonic Harrier.

I am 80% layman, 40% mathematician, 30% superhero, and 20% bullshit artist  

Super hero of patience yes

I don't think air borne Onyx would be more than 2.5-3 tons and I would expect the same of the Zircon...

Brahmos air launched 2.5 tons exactly.

PS: Unfortunately, perhaps it's just a notional nose model of T-50, the image comes from this video, see at 22:15 minute

If it is a nose model for the T-50 then why does it have a MiG emblem on its side?

MiG did quite a bit of research for a light fighter during the 90's and probably also early 2000's. Even after losing the PAK-FA they have probably continued since they invested lots of time and efforts. So there is every probability it is related to some development of theirs rather than T-50

I don't see this worse as conventional planes.

With a conventional plane you have radar and pilot at nose and engines in the rear... you can position the wing structure near the normal CG, and fill the structure from front to back with fuel tanks that can shift around fuel to allow balance... of course a lot of fuel is in the wings as well which helps because that is already the CG.

Conventional planes don't hover... in fact some intentionally have a CG that is off centre to improve manouver performance.... many planes are designed to fly tail forward so they turn more rapidly about their CG because they want to fly tail forward anyway... and use complex flight control systems to keep them flying normally.

In fact the heaviest compact component is the engine, being at the CoG is not bad at all.

The problem there is that the engine exhaust nozzle has to be at the CoG... which means the engine... often 2 tons or more is forward of the CoG... along with the pilot and radar out on that pivoting arm called the nose.

Fulcrum is a good name for a STOVL fighter actually...

You can put all sorts of avionics and equipment in the boom arms and fuselage behind the engine exhaust, but that makes the whole fighter sluggish because it is so well balanced, you will need rather large control surfaces to allow any sort of decent manouver capability... which wont be good for RCS.

Weight at the nose needs to be structurally balanced, and nowadays radars (more when GaN comes) are not as big heavy as in the older days.

But what goes good in a tail?

And it can't be anything that can be used up like bombs or missiles because if you use them then you need to dump the radar and pilot to land vertically...

Don't know the details about it but I guess any plane loaded with tons and tons of fuel and weapons needs to address on flight balancing and trimming, maybe you have data about this...

All I know is that the Yak-36 had what looked like a big inflight refuelling probe sticking out its nose... it was actually a pressurised air thruster used to stabilise the aircraft in flight when in the hover... there were similar thrusters in the wing tips and tail because it is not enough to have all the engine power on the CoG... you actually have to be able to control the aircraft in yaw and roll and the X and Y axis...

Lots of internal high pressure piping... terribly vulnerable to damage that would render the aircraft unable to take off or land... and likely visible to IR sensors too...

First developments of the Pegasus had one nozzle at the back and not two, do not know why this was abandoned since it may have allowed for an afterburning version and hence maybe a supersonic Harrier.

Would be interesting to find the official reason... I would expect a single rear nozzle would have been the natural choice, but then experience with the front nozzles might have led to them finding they had better control with effectively four nozzles instead of three.

AFAIK the nozzles on the Harrier rotated but also had vanes inside them to give some sideways deflection capability... perhaps they decided having four nozzles with sideways deflection capacity was more useful than having three with only the front two nozzles being able to deflect sideways.

Of course also the Yak-41 had a single rear nozzle and it required a totally different tail area than the Harrier had... perhaps they wanted to keep their conventional tail...

Brahmos air launched 2.5 tons exactly.

Onyx has a rather greater range... I suspect the Yakhont that the Brahmos is based upon is a scaled down Onyx...

Have never seen a real Onyx myself...

MiG did quite a bit of research for a light fighter during the 90's and probably also early 2000's. Even after losing the PAK-FA they have probably continued since they invested lots of time and efforts. So there is every probability it is related to some development of theirs rather than T-50

Agreed, but that would make the nose section the MiG competitor to the T-50... with UAE funding for a light 5th gen fighter we might yet see what it was supposed to look like.

GarryB wrote:Conventional planes don't hover... in fact some intentionally have a CG that is off centre to improve manouver performance.... many planes are designed to fly tail forward so they turn more rapidly about their CG because they want to fly tail forward anyway... and use complex flight control systems to keep them flying normally.

You mean unstable, that is, with the tendency to rise the nose right? With so much weight forward it can be difficult to get this configuration since it means having the CL forward from CG but this in turn puts the wing and hence more weight forward. In other planes the rear positioned engine helps with the unstable configuration. X-32 had a forward placed CG too.

The problem there is that the engine exhaust nozzle has to be at the CG... which means the engine... often 2 tons or more is forward of the CG... along with the pilot and radar out on that pivoting arm called the nose.

1.4 tons an AL-31 (do not know weight of ancillaries) but yes, agree the engine in the end is mostly placed forward from CG too. Depending on the configuration of the engine and nozzle, the later can move forward notably when deploying for vertical lift (like F-35 for instance) so you can shorten the force arm.

You can put all sorts of avionics and equipment in the boom arms and fuselage behind the engine exhaust, but that makes the whole fighter sluggish because it is so well balanced, you will need rather large control surfaces to allow any sort of decent manouver capability... which wont be good for RCS.

But what goes good in a tail?

Clearly you have to put the tail and as much structure backwards as you can. Landing gear can fold backwards instead of forward. Plus of course fuel tanks. Maybe you can tweak wings too to move weight back and lift forward.

If the plane is stable without remedy (CoG in front of CoL) then use canards to lift the nose by increasing lift and not the contrary as it happens with the tail. It wont make the plane very manoeuvrable but will help in general and also in sustained turn.

you actually have to be able to control the aircraft in yaw and roll and the X and Y axis...

Lots of internal high pressure piping... terribly vulnerable to damage that would render the aircraft unable to take off or land... and likely visible to IR sensors too...

Yes, this needs to be done in any STOVL configuration. Not good but also not terrible, and much better than putting additional HW for lift.

Onyx has a rather greater range... I suspect the Yakhont that the Brahmos is based upon is a scaled down Onyx...

Yes, Yakhont is the export version of Onyx

Agreed, but that would make the nose section the MiG competitor to the T-50... with UAE funding for a light 5th gen fighter we might yet see what it was supposed to look like.

Not sure, they went through LFI and LFS programs for light fighters in the nineties and then they are supposed to have worked on LMFS. Hopefully we will eventually know!

GarryB wrote:

F-35 is shit so Russian VSTOL have  to be as well. You must never have been working with requirements and client acceptance criteria.  Otherwise this would be pretty straight forwad.

Have a good look at the Yak-43 drawing... no models, but the drawing looks a lot like the F-35... do you think it is an accident?
The F-35 is basically a Yak-43 but made much more expensive because it is three different types instead of just a STOVL like it is supposed to be.

Agree with one remark. Below this is not Yak-43 but Yak-41M, final design.





OK and now tell me what did you do with The Real GB?! Im gonna call cops if you dont return him right now!!!

I think it is ok but I doubt a plane which can only lift 5-6 tons in total could carry an Onix or Kinzhal. And those are extremely destabilising weapons as far as I can see. One single fighter with a Kinzhal under its belly is a serious risk for a CSG...

I don't think air borne Onyx would be more than 2.5-3 tons and I would expect the same of the Zircon...

Zircon is ship-borne and 1000km, GZUR is airborne and 1,500km .  IMHO due to platform speed/service ceiling.

But I prefer to ask the question: why Russian Navy knowing much better then any of us, do still insists in VSTOL?  

They might want a long endurance subsonic STOVL cheap fighter that operates very close to ships, that could also do anti sub work with dipping sonars or whatever...

and that's how false theories build on hate and prejudice get shatter into pieces when bumping on real world's decisions      

(1) And what is real performance?30 years ago of Yak 41? which could BTW be a decent fighter in 2-3 iterations,  no worse then MiG-29.

No it could not... having three jet engines directing afterburning super hot air directly at the ground beneath the Yak-41 meant no ordinance or external fuel tanks on the body of the aircraft... and its rather small wing had four weapon hard points... not to mention there is no way for it to land or take off vertically without hot exhaust gas from entering those big air intakes at the front and stalling the engine/s which in a hover are fatal.

As for weapons you must be  definitely better then Yak  designers. They said it was posible.
Could not start vertically? no lding? no hoovering? woow look and impossible. And enjoy      

https://www.rt.com/news/375349-russia-mig-fighter-jet/

According to Bondarev, flight tests of the new fighter are expected to be completed in summer this year, right after which a contract to purchase 30 MiG-35 jets will be concluded between the Mikoyan corporation and the Russian Defense Ministry. "Then in a short while we will replace the whole fleet of lightweight fighters with such jets," he added, saying there are plans to purchase no less than 170 MiG-35 planes.

Tis actually confirming my arguments. thnk you ! News is from jan 2017. Almost 2 years ago. Check bolded above.  Yes VVS wants to have them. In unlimited money supply they would surely be procured. In current conditions tho a choice must be made. Funds can go only on most promising directions. They may eventually appear but only if budget it there.

Dont get me wrong. MiG-35 s a good fighter just not in time...

(1) So you are assuming they are buying 6 because they don't actually want it... then why buy any at all?
WTF are they going to do with 6 planes if all the rest are going to be Sukhois?

(2) If they are only buying 6 because they want to create an export market and don't want the MiG-35 are they doing the same with the Su-57 and its 12 airframes ordered... and if it is different how is it different?

(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap if VSTOL gets delayed
(2) hint:  MiG-35 = is good but legacy tech; Su-57= promising tech

I dont think they have anything new before 2030 frankly speaking. Mind then making a prototype and finalizing tests takes some time in Russia.

...(1) of course... even nothing means continuing with MiG-29s in service is better than a MiG-35... (2) So why bother with ever putting anything at all into service?
And in the west 6th gen super planes will just instantly appear... (3) I mean look at how quickly Europe got those 5th gen fighters into service... only in Russia things take time... of (4)course maybe if the F-35 had taken a little longer it might actually be a better aircraft...[/quote]

(1) MiG-29k will be rendered obsolete (by Russian statement) in second half of 2020s. Su-33 will be physically at end of service life.

(2) West have collectively much higher production capacity to build fighters in numbers.

(4) F-35 will be unlikely   entering any dog fighting with fighters. Why should it? there will be bunch of drones with say 15/20g overload ability and high maneuverability to do this as its wingmen.

(3) It is gonna be 6gen (drone more, DEW)

Perhaps because during last  tender MiG-35 was not finished fighter and had enormous problems with quality? (vide: Algerian MiGs) + politics (also internal) of course.

the Algerian MiGs were not MiG-35s and the fact that the Russian AF is currently using the MiG-29SMTs they rejected suggests there was nothing at all wrong with them...
+++

(2)Indians passed it, but chose the Rafale because they didn't want an all Russian fighter fleet... they actually wanted domestic production of the Mirage 2000, but France refused.

(1) MiG-29SMT were for Algeria. Was it French bribed general? perhaps yes perhaps not. however problems with quality were real and last years  MoD got MIC by the balls only.
Yes they were transferred to RuAF but after fixing in MiG...

(2) no, Indians rejected. There were problems performance of radar + engines promised but not delivered.  Well no "French bribed general" here too? I wouldn't exclude this.

Because USA failed to deliver ? and this is your strongest argument?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect  then pwnd.

They also looked at their experience with lift jets and took their ideas on main engine powered lift fans... and with all their money and all the brains of the Russians they still fucked up.
+++
What they should have done was have two different types... a STOVL fat subsonic aircraft like a buccaneer that can take off from anywhere that can take a vertical 20 ton thrust blast of AB... (ie aircraft carriers with heat resistant surfaces, and airfields with heat resistant matts put down)  the lift fan can be angled back slightly to prevent hot air coming in the front intakes...
But they were dumb and tried to have everything in one...

That's actually very reasonable, besides this "subsonic conspiracy theory" . Tell me why subsonic would work but supersonic not?

The Yak-44 was never actually cancelled, but when there was no catapult equipped large carrier developed they never needed the Yak-44... it would never work on a Kuznetsov sized ship without a catapult, so it was not continued...

of course there is huge difference between cancelled and closed after building a mockup.

Using a fan is the solution to generate lift with cold, low speed air, but the downside is that you need a very big fan area... not really adequate for a supersonic fighter I think.

The fan solution works up front, but at the back of the aircraft with the main engine that powers that fan it will be blasting runway material all over the place...

Can you show F-35 vertical start from a regular runway so I can enjoy those flying material all over the place?      

No advanced physics at all... in regards of aeronautics I am 90% a layman too

I am 80% layman, 40% mathematician, 30% superhero, and 20% bullshit artist  

damn, why I have always bad luck to talking to those 20%      

(2) As can you see F-35 without VSTOL ability is still bulky  and fat

The external shape is unified, so the STOVL model needed room for a lift fan in the front... so they all have that shape, but the conventional models don't actually have the fan so they have more internal space for fuel.

Show me, please another stealth fighter of size and payload as F-35 so you can convince me.      

no  other CATOBAR navalized fighters in the world.

MiG-29/33, and Su-27/33

Cool and what catapults they were tested with?

You mean unstable, that is, with the tendency to rise the nose right? With so much weight forward it can be difficult to get this configuration since it means having the CL forward from CG but this in turn puts the wing and hence more weight forward. In other planes the rear positioned engine helps with the unstable configuration. X-32 had a forward placed CG too.

At the design stage you can set the CoG.... it is where you normally put the wing... but changing the wing sweep shifts the CoG as well.

With a sophisticated flight control system having relaxed stability can be a good thing... but it uses tiny continuous movements of the control surfaces to keep the aircraft flying nose forward... in the hover those control surfaces are decoration, so you need puffer jets in the tail, in the nose and on each wing tip to get the same measure of control of the aircraft...

1.4 tons an AL-31 (do not know weight of ancillaries) but yes, agree the engine in the end is mostly placed forward from CG too.

The exhaust of the engine is the centre of thrust or force and unless you want lifting fans or separate lifting engines then you need that centre of force (engine exhaust nozzle to be directly over the CoG for that aircraft at that weapon and fuel weight... you can shift the fuel around a bit, but you need to make sure even when there is almost no fuel left that you can balance the aircraft otherwise you can't land vertically...

This can seriously effect bring back payload capacity too.

Clearly you have to put the tail and as much structure backwards as you can. Landing gear can fold backwards instead of forward. Plus of course fuel tanks. Maybe you can tweak wings too to move weight back and lift forward.

You have to be careful of fuel... you don't want a situation where you can't use the last ton of fuel because otherwise there will be nothing to balance the weight of the nose mounted equipment.

Better to have things like batteries in the rear to counter things in the front that also never get dumped or used up.

[quote]Zircon is ship-borne and 1000km, GZUR is airborne and 1,500km . IMHO due to platform speed/service ceiling. [/qutoe]

That right there tells you they are different weapons... Iskander is a 500km range missile launched from the ground, and Kinzhal is a 2,000km range missile launched from an aircraft... being launched already up in the air and already moving at speed should increase the range by 3-4 times...

I rather suspect GZUR is a smaller weapon...

and that's how false theories build on hate and prejudice get shatter into pieces when bumping on real world's decisions

The Yak-38M had a tiny wing yet it was always a subsonic design... a thicker wing offering better lift and more internal capacity for extra fuel would have greatly improved the design with a minor decrease in flight speed...

As for weapons you must be definitely better then Yak designers. They said it was posible.
Could not start vertically? no lding? no hoovering? woow look and impossible. And enjoy

In all that video... one successful landing in a hover... the last landing is actually footage of its crash that destroyed the aircraft...

The landing you do see you can see the flame from the AB in the lifting jet motors flaring out of the bottom of their position... hardly ideal...

Dont get me wrong. MiG-35 s a good fighter just not in time...

It is designed and ready to go and is half the price of the Su-30 they are soon ending production of... the Su-35 and Su-57 will be rather more expensive and in many situations not actually more capable.

(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap if VSTOL gets delayed

So what you are saying is that they will make 6 planes now and then in 10 years time when the VSTOL is cancelled they will make more?

BTW correction for you:


(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap when the VSTOL gets delayed...

(2) hint: MiG-35 = is good but legacy tech; Su-57= promising tech

Mig-35, Su-35, and Su-57 are all the same tech level in terms of avionics...

That is why they can all operate as single seat aircraft if needed.

MiG-35 has the option of a two seat version, unlike the Sukhoi jets.

(1) MiG-29k will be rendered obsolete (by Russian statement) in second half of 2020s. Su-33 will be physically at end of service life.

Every 3-5 years they will get upgrades to keep them competitive...

(2) West have collectively much higher production capacity to build fighters in numbers.

It has countries to invade so it needs that capacity... Russian needs are defensive.

(4) F-35 will be unlikely entering any dog fighting with fighters. Why should it? there will be bunch of drones with say 15/20g overload ability and high maneuverability to do this as its wingmen.

Lets be honest here... the F-35 puts the dog in dog fight... it wont enter into a dog fight by choice... but in combat you don't always get a choice... the MiG-3 was an excellent high altitude interceptor, but on the eastern front most combat took place at medium to low altitude...

(3) It is gonna be 6gen (drone more, DEW)

So WTF do they need some VSTOL fighter for if all the future fighting will be done by drones?

Why do you need a 1.5 trillion dollar stealth aircraft to operate 6th gen drones?

(1) MiG-29SMT were for Algeria. Was it French bribed general? perhaps yes perhaps not. however problems with quality were real and last years MoD got MIC by the balls only.
Yes they were transferred to RuAF but after fixing in MiG...

The MiG-29SMTs were for Algeria and Algeria rejected them when they got an offer from Sukhoi for Flankers for the same price they were paying for their MiGs... I doubt there was anything wrong with them at all.

(2) no, Indians rejected. There were problems performance of radar + engines promised but not delivered. Well no "French bribed general" here too? I wouldn't exclude this.

Indians had no intention of accepting another Russian aircraft.... these planes were supposed to replace M2Ks and Jaguars...

That's actually very reasonable, besides this "subsonic conspiracy theory" . Tell me why subsonic would work but supersonic not?

Because subsonic aircraft can be fat and have bulges and lots of internal space for weapons and fans. With supersonic aircraft they need to have a different shape.

of course there is huge difference between cancelled and closed after building a mockup.

One requires a complete redesign, but no guaranteed funding. the second you keep all your information and work and wait.

Obviously with this amount of time passing a complete redesign will be needed anyway, but certain features can be kept because they are not proven to be fundamentally flawed.

Cool and what catapults they were tested with?

Both aircraft were vigorously tested... here is the photo evidence:

GarryB wrote:

Zircon is ship-borne and 1000km, GZUR is airborne and 1,500km .  IMHO due to platform speed/service ceiling.

I rather suspect GZUR is a smaller weapon...

Both Kh-50 and GZUR are designed to for inside Tu-22M3 x6. I.e. size must be ~ Ks-15. However Janes says 1,600kg for  Kh-50. I guess assuming GZUR will be similar insize. Range of both (Janes) 1,500km.

and that's how false theories build on hate and prejudice get shatter into pieces when bumping on real world's decisions

The Yak-38M had a tiny wing yet it was always a subsonic design... a thicker wing offering better lift and more internal capacity for extra fuel would have greatly improved the design with a minor decrease in flight speed...

perhaps but Yak-38 and (mproved Yak-38m -cancelled for Yak-41) are dead for 30years.

As for weapons you must be  definitely better then Yak  designers. They said it was posible.
Could not start vertically? no lding? no hoovering? woow look and impossible. And enjoy

In all that video... one successful landing in a hover... the last landing is actually footage of its crash that destroyed the aircraft...
The landing you do see you can see the flame from the AB in the lifting jet motors flaring out of the bottom of their position... hardly ideal...

pwnd: hoovering is possible. Weapons - Yak-38 started without problems. As for ideal landing what about 2 fighters lost crashing in Syria. But they were STOBAR.

Dont get me wrong. MiG-35 s a good fighter just not in time...

It is designed and ready to go and is half the price of the Su-30 they are soon ending production of... the Su-35 and Su-57 will be rather more expensive and in many situations not actually more capable.

not sure what you are smoking now but Su-57 is onpair with MiG-35? DAT must be hard stuff. Can get one?

(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap if VSTOL gets delayed

So what you are saying is that they will make 6 planes now and then in 10 years time when the VSTOL is cancelled they will make more?

meh in  10 years MiG-35 will be even deader then now

(2) hint:  MiG-35 = is good but legacy tech; Su-57= promising tech

Mig-35, Su-35, and Su-57 are all the same tech level in terms of avionics...
That is why they can all operate as single seat aircraft if needed.
MiG-35 has the option of a two seat version, unlike the Sukhoi jets.

mind elaborate  how it comes that the best Russian fighter ever is almost dead an only worse Su-57 or Su-35 are still produced?

(1) MiG-29k will be rendered obsolete (by Russian statement) in second half of 2020s. Su-33 will be physically at end of service life.

Every 3-5 years they will get upgrades to keep them competitive...

OK then when was the last one? any source?

(2) West have collectively much higher production capacity to build fighters in numbers.

It has countries to invade so it needs that capacity... Russian needs are defensive.

To defend territory in pair of 2x western Europe + USA

(3) It is gonna be 6gen (drone more, DEW)

So WTF do they need some VSTOL fighter for if all the future fighting will be done by drones?
+++
Why do you need a 1.5 trillion dollar stealth aircraft to operate 6th gen drones?

Good question. Spending money? That's nothing wrong with manned fighter commanding bunch of drones.  The problem of F-35 is thet it is 20 years too late... next at the gate.

That's actually very reasonable, besides this "subsonic conspiracy theory" . Tell me why subsonic would work but supersonic not?

Because subsonic aircraft can be fat and have bulges and lots of internal space for weapons and fans. With supersonic aircraft they need to have a different shape.

Like Yak-41M

of course there is huge difference between cancelled and closed after building a mockup.

One requires a complete redesign, but no guaranteed funding. the second you keep all your information and work and wait.
Obviously with this amount of time passing a complete redesign will be needed anyway, but certain features can be kept because they are not proven to be fundamentally flawed.

Ya was never proven either. Only mockup. no avionics no AWACS. Ad engine constantly redesigned and improved till 2009.

Cool and what catapults they were tested with?

Both aircraft were vigorously tested... here is the photo evidence:

[/quote]


your most convincing proof so far. Consider me convinced

GarryB wrote:At the design stage you can set the CoG.... it is where you normally put the wing... but changing the wing sweep shifts the CoG as well.

With a sophisticated flight control system having relaxed stability can be a good thing... but it uses tiny continuous movements of the control surfaces to keep the aircraft flying nose forward... in the hover those control surfaces are decoration, so you need puffer jets in the tail, in the nose and on each wing tip to get the same measure of control of the aircraft...

Stable planes have CG in front of the CL and unstable or relaxed have it afterwards. So wing is not really at CG but I understand what you mean.

In order to have some allowance during hovering, X-32 had an additional nozzle with air from the compressor in front of the nozzle to help balancing. It would surely help also placing the engine a little more at the back than otherwise.

The exhaust of the engine is the centre of thrust or force and unless you want lifting fans or separate lifting engines then you need that centre of force (engine exhaust nozzle to be directly over the CoG for that aircraft at that weapon and fuel weight... you can shift the fuel around a bit, but you need to make sure even when there is almost no fuel left that you can balance the aircraft otherwise you can't land vertically...

This can seriously effect bring back payload capacity too.

Agree and also see above, I meant that the nozzle in level flight and in hover are in different positions in planes with bevelling nozzle

Both Kh-50 and GZUR are designed to for inside Tu-22M3 x6. I.e. size must be ~ Ks-15. However Janes says 1,600kg for Kh-50. I guess assuming GZUR will be similar insize. Range of both (Janes) 1,500km.

So GZUR is likely a replacement for the Kh-15 Kickback then...

perhaps but Yak-38 and (mproved Yak-38m -cancelled for Yak-41) are dead for 30years.

The fault in the design stemmed from the demand that they be transonic or supersonic, and therefore were fitted with thin low drag small wings.

A large high lift wing would be much more use during landing and takeoff in the rolling takeoff and rolling landing mode... it would be dead weight in a vertical landing or takeoff but you would only takeoff or land vertically in an emergency anyway... which would make ditching fuel and weapons acceptable...

pwnd: hoovering is possible.

The video evidence you provide has a 50% crash rate for vertical landings... simply not acceptable...

As for ideal landing what about 2 fighters lost crashing in Syria. But they were STOBAR.

The arrester gear system was faulty... when it is working the STOBAR aircraft are much more capable than the cancelled and useless Yak-41s that they don't have.

not sure what you are smoking now but Su-57 is onpair with MiG-35? DAT must be hard stuff. Can get one?

If the mission is to fly out into the Black Sea into international airspace and escort a JSTARS aircraft that has somehow gotten lost a MiG-35 could do every bit as good a job as an Su-57, without giving up any stealth secrets to those yanks...

meh in 10 years MiG-35 will be even deader then now

Excellent... so not dead at all.

mind elaborate how it comes that the best Russian fighter ever is almost dead an only worse Su-57 or Su-35 are still produced?

Your selective memory... all three are in production and have orders from the Russian Air Force.

Good question. Spending money? That's nothing wrong with manned fighter commanding bunch of drones. The problem of F-35 is thet it is 20 years too late... next at the gate.

Do you work for the US MIC?

Are you saying that only an expensive new 5th gen STOVL fighter aircraft could be used to control 6th gen drones that will do all the fighting in the future?

Why not control them from cheap current generation fighters... especially considering the new 5th gen Russian fighters are all single seat aircraft while the 4+++th gen fighters come in single and two seat models... which would make them even better suited to controlling drones.