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...

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

GarryB wrote:

Su-34 - fighter bomber
MiG-31  fighter interceptor

... but what is your point?

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?

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.

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.

(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...

do you have a Freudian fixation on F-35?

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

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?

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?

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...

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.

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...

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

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...

GunshipDemocracy wrote: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  

LMFS wrote:

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

Good discussion for Gunship means STOVL irrespective of the thread  

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.

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?

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.

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.
{}
<here was your drawing>

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?

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?

(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....

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.

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...

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?

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...

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 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...

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...

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

Gunship wrote: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?

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?

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?

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

(1) And what is real performance?

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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...

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

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

and what EFT is?

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

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.

So? 20 vs 200 or 300%?

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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  

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!  

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)

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?

 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.

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...

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

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.

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.

Dont you think that with data I provided Russian gave green light to fund new development?      

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...

"...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"

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...

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...

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

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

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

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....

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...

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...

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

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

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: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.

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.

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?

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...

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

That's pic best i could find to resemble end of 90s proposed VSTOL. Yak future VSTOL concept (on left). Both are actually wind tunnel models  of  Korean promising 5gen fighters model.  

   

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.

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...

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.

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.

(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?

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

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.

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...

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...

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...

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  

(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.

no  other CATOBAR navalized fighters in the world.

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

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...

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?

(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.

(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?

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: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...

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.