Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Azi wrote:
LOL No!

They said that Yak-38 was used in STVOL mode and made a good perfomance. Other point is, that in Afghanistan runways with a few km length were seldom, so that Yak-38 was more effective, because other aircraft flew longer distance from ordinary air bases. Fuel was lower, but it didn't matter because the Yak-38 was near the frontline. So most time Yak-38 had a bigger fuel reserve, when returning as other aircraft.

The problems with airstrip were real, but it was a experiment first time they used a VTOL/STOVL aircraft in a conflict of a landlocked country. So they have now the know how, maybe they have some sufficient funds...and let's see what happens

What "LOL"? Are not you able to argue a point of view on a serious mood and attitude?

STOL seemed some funny features in the 60's and early 70's, when fastjets were designed with 0,5:1 T/W ratio.

Have a look at Su-17, extensively employed in Afghanistan.

With those aircrafts, 2000+ meters runaway was a necessity foreseen already in the drawing boards.

Today, any Mig-29 or Su-27 require and handful of hundred meters to take off, and with combat loads exceeding those actually viable for Yak-141, let alone Yak-38.

The test pilot in the video testimonies that by himself: he judged satisfactory the Yak-38 test because in Afghanistan when operating short take offs it could bring around 2 tons combat payload.

Now load a Mig-29 or a Su-27 with 2 tons only of ordnance, and check their take offs performances, you'll discover they need more or less the same runaway length required by the glorified Yak-141.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Really you you have statement of any top brass about it? because from history Soviet Union was dissolved and many programs stopped not because they were wrong.  You compare  Yak from 80' with MiG from 2010. And surprisingly MiG is better. I would be surprised  if not.  

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to.  and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?  


Please tell me then
1) why MiG-29K is not going to be developed further neither produced for RuN?
2) Why Royal Navy resigned  from CATOBAR F-35 and gone for F-35B if this suck so much?

The test pilot testified in the video that Yak-38 in Afghanistan was forced to perform short take offs instead of vertical ones, to be able to haul any meaningful combat payload.

So vertical take off feature was stricken off.

The very same video testify that vertical landings, rapidly destroyed the landing strip, so even vertical landing feature was stricken off from the test field.

In the end, they operated a STOL procedure employing a VTOL aircraft, with all the VTOL's stuff and equipment being useless if not a penalty. Because what you do not need or have not a use for, is at least a baĺlast, isn't it?

The ditching of Yak-141 and it's timeline is engraved in stone, everybody knows when it happened.

What should be looked at with a pinch of attention is, aside the Su-33 production timeline that fit perfectly with the aforementioned ditching of Yak-141, is that Mig-29K was started on very late 80's/early90's, and it was constantly developed in the second half of 90's up to the point to be a credible and viable naval fighter for the Indians.

Neither the Russians, nor the Indians, gave too much credit to the Yak-141, even if both had ship's and experience with respectively Yak-38 and Sea Harrier.

The Indians were actually funding the final development and testing phase of Mig-29K, if they had su h a confidence in vertical landings (vertical take offs being been never considered seriously), they could have advanced an offer to fund the Yak-141, couldn't they?

Peŕrier wrote:What "LOL"? Are not you able to argue a point of view on a serious mood and attitude?

STOL seemed some funny features in the 60's and early 70's, when fastjets were designed with 0,5:1 T/W ratio.

...

LOL because you are arguing not fair and objectively. You are comparing the technology of TODAY with Yak-38 and say that STOVL and VTOL is crap. I can't really compare the Harrier with F-35B, they are aircraft of complete different generation. You have your opinion before the concept even exists. How can you decide if a concept is good or bad before scientist and engineer starting their work?

In Afghanistan the experiment with Yak-38 offered many problems, but it even offered many advantages of the concept. In Russian Air Force STOVL and VTOL died because of no funds, not of the concept itself. Other good concepts died the same way in 90ies, it's a complete lost decade for russian defence.

There will be a new concept for STOVL/VTOL and we all don't know if it will be good or bad. So just let the guys do their work. You can say Yak-38 was a primitive aircraft compared to others and had less payload, but the new STOVL/VTOL will be not the Yak-38 or Yak-141. There are many problems with STOVL/VTOL but it offers many advantages.

Peŕrier wrote:Now load a Mig-29 or a Su-27 with 2 tons only of ordnance, and check their take offs performances, you'll discover they need more or less the same runaway length required by the glorified Yak-141.

0 meters!? You can push everything to 18 tons of take off weight into Yak-141 and it still can do VTOL. This would be the weight of Yak-141 itself 11,6 tons, 2 tons payload for weapons in your example and the rest for fuel. The Yak was not a STOVL aircraft, it was designed as a VTOL aircraft. Still every VTOL can do STOVL and the F-35B (STOVL) can do VTOL.

Lift engines are very powerful of Yak-141. It have a bit less the lift thrust of F-35B but is 3 tons lighter.

No, Yak-141's tests showed it could perform vertical take offs with one ton of payload only.

To bring around 2,5 tons of payload it had to perform a 120 meters take off run

A full combat load required a rather conventional take off run, not really short.

It was not by chance or mistake that they opted for Su-33 and Mig-29K instead of Yak-141: with the only constraint of an angled deck with arrestor gear, they got far more versatile and useful combat aircraft.

VTOL is a failed concept when referred to combat aircrafts.

STOVL (a là F-35B) could have a meaning when you are already operating a large enough number of flat tops that couldn't possibly operate aircrafts requiring arrestor gear.

If you have not such large number of flat tops, the STOVL start loosing appeal as well.

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:
No, the Yak-141 had a scaled down version of Zhuk to save weight and volume (surprise!).

if you compare available data of Zhuk model in MiG 86'  and scaled down Yak version actual deection abilities are the same. surprise

Peŕrier wrote:
So to provide almost the same performances of a Mig-29K, a Yak-141 had to operate just as a Mig-29K, making the two auxiliary turbojet and the swiveling nozzle just a baĺlast.

It is not by chance that Yak-141 was ditched and Mig-29K development was pursued instead.

Really you you have statement of any top brass about it? because from history Soviet Union was dissolved and many programs stopped not because they were wrong.  You compare  Yak from 80' with MiG from 2010. And surprisingly MiG is better. I would be surprised  if not.  

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to.  and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?  


Please tell me then
1) why MiG-29K is not going to be developed further neither produced for RuN?
2) Why Royal Navy resigned  from CATOBAR F-35 and gone for F-35B if this suck so much?

1) The MiG-29/35 is an aircraft design of the late 1970s, early 1980s. The MiG-29K is a late variant, and will not have further development because of the advanced age of its technological basis. By the time when new aircrafts for aircraft carriers will be needed in Russia, the design of the MiG-29 will be fairly exhausted. The same for the Su-27/30/33/35 and its naval variant, the Su-33.

At the time the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35 were selected as basis for fighters for the aircraft carriers over other VTOL options because of a superior performance. The main problem with the VTOL fighters, is to produce designs underperformers by nature. The addition of VTOL systems to a modern fighter is expensive, adds weight, and damages the performance.

It is not totally right to say that the Yak-141 and other VTOL variants of the 1980s were cancelled because of the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time, these designs were defeated by the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35, the Su-33, just produced between 1989 and 1999 (not cancelled like the VTOL options), and later also by the naval variant of the MiG-29/35, the MiG-29K.

If Russia does a bid for an new VTOL fighter, very very likely it will fall to the Su-57, like previous bids failed in the 1980s to the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35. The best option for Russia is to use the Su-57 for its future aircraft carriers, even, if possible, without need of a naval variant.

1) MiG-29K was accepted in 2010. Yak-141 was stopped in 1991 and development stalled by end of 80's. So what actually you compare?


2) I'd love still see at least one historian, subject matter expert or top brass opinion roving that Yak was rejected because was poor performing. So far seen none but maybe this statement really exist?

3) V?STOL fighter is planned. That what was stated so far. I presume lighter and cheaper then Su-57, more like S-54 and also for export. Yak has now little weight as planes' manufacturer so cake could go to Su as only real fighter manufacturer or less probable to MiG.

Peŕrier wrote:No, Yak-141's tests showed it could perform vertical take offs with one ton of payload only.

To bring around 2,5 tons of payload it had to perform a 120 meters take off run

That's precisely the difference: VTOL or 120m without skj jump vs ~200m with ski jump for MiG 29k. But length of landing strip or ability to vertically land means nothing in case of naval operations then V/STOL is good for nothing.

+

Peŕrier wrote:
STOVL (a là F-35B) could have a meaning when you are already operating a large enough number  of flat tops that couldn't possibly operate aircrafts requiring arrestor gear.

If you have not such large number of flat tops, the  STOVL start loosing appeal as well.

However practice proves Royal Navy, USMC or couple of other navies choose otherwise.

Peŕrier wrote:
It was not by chance or mistake that they opted for Su-33 and Mig-29K instead of Yak-141: with the only constraint of an angled deck with arrestor gear, they got far more versatile and useful combat aircraft.

With a MiG lost by landing in Syrua. Out of 24 ever produced for RuN in Syria. And Su-33 without ability to use against land targets? sounds fairly convincing to me.

GarryB wrote:

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to. and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?

Have you not seen the video of a Yak-41 burning after a heavy vertical landing ruptured its fuel tanks and started a huge fire....

Arrested landings are rather safe and effective... if they are spending money developing EM cats it makes sense to use them to maximise the take off weight of carrier aircraft. and expand performance rather than reduce it.

Nope, I didn't see this video but I am sure that there was one or more . There were many different accidents finally Yak-41 then Yak-41M (141) and not implemented Yak-141M. Current plane also will have to grow technologically. With lessons learned by US with F-35B Russians have easier task.


And what is most important much smaller fleet that US or even UK. The question is not V/STOL or not but what tasks fleet has to address. Invading of New Zealand, Poland or Latvia ? for example :-)
Or attacking continental Mauritania? who knows.


Or just sail around globe and show off V/STOL fighters to market it with occasional supporting humanitarian operations?

Or defend mainly northern route against aircraft/ASW forces and supporting own ASW?




Well live and see in coming years. with each news we grow smarter I guess



Between Yak-141 and new Russian V/STOL fighter there il be more then 35 years difference! V/STOL has its value for Navy especially.
That's so far was proved by USMC/Royal Navy not to mention Italian/Spanish and potentially Japanese and Australian.

Azi wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:What "LOL"? Are not you able to argue a point of view on a serious mood and attitude?

STOL seemed some funny features in the 60's and early 70's, when fastjets were designed with 0,5:1 T/W ratio.

...

LOL because you are arguing not fair and objectively. You are comparing the technology of TODAY with Yak-38 and say that STOVL and VTOL is crap. I can't really compare the Harrier with F-35B, they are aircraft of complete different generation. You have your opinion before the concept even exists. How can you decide if a concept is good or bad before scientist and engineer starting their work?

In Afghanistan the experiment with Yak-38 offered many problems, but it even offered many advantages of the concept. In Russian Air Force STOVL and VTOL died because of no funds, not of the concept itself. Other good concepts died the same way in 90ies, it's a complete lost decade for russian defence.

There will be a new concept for STOVL/VTOL and we all don't know if it will be good or bad. So just let the guys do their work. You can say Yak-38 was a primitive aircraft compared to others and had less payload, but the new STOVL/VTOL will be not the Yak-38 or Yak-141. There are many problems with STOVL/VTOL but it offers many advantages.

Damn you dude, You've stolen my argument

For some strange reasons smart dudes like Garry B and Perrier  comparing planes with 40 years of difference in technology. Assuming that future V/STOL fighter in Russia will be at most replica of solutions form earlu 80s. In early 2020s.

Some how they do not  compare Super Entendard or A-7 Corsair II with F-35B?  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:
No, the Yak-141 had a scaled down version of Zhuk to save weight and volume (surprise!).

if you compare available data of Zhuk model in MiG 86'  and scaled down Yak version actual deection abilities are the same. surprise

Peŕrier wrote:
So to provide almost the same performances of a Mig-29K, a Yak-141 had to operate just as a Mig-29K, making the two auxiliary turbojet and the swiveling nozzle just a baĺlast.

It is not by chance that Yak-141 was ditched and Mig-29K development was pursued instead.

Really you you have statement of any top brass about it? because from history Soviet Union was dissolved and many programs stopped not because they were wrong.  You compare  Yak from 80' with MiG from 2010. And surprisingly MiG is better. I would be surprised  if not.  

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to.  and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?  


Please tell me then
1) why MiG-29K is not going to be developed further neither produced for RuN?
2) Why Royal Navy resigned  from CATOBAR F-35 and gone for F-35B if this suck so much?

1) The MiG-29/35 is an aircraft design of the late 1970s, early 1980s. The MiG-29K is a late variant, and will not have further development because of the advanced age of its technological basis. By the time when new aircrafts for aircraft carriers will be needed in Russia, the design of the MiG-29 will be fairly exhausted. The same for the Su-27/30/33/35 and its naval variant, the Su-33.

At the time the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35 were selected as basis for fighters for the aircraft carriers over other VTOL options because of a superior performance. The main problem with the VTOL fighters, is to produce designs underperformers by nature. The addition of VTOL systems to a modern fighter is expensive, adds weight, and damages the performance.

It is not totally right to say that the Yak-141 and other VTOL variants of the 1980s were cancelled because of the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time, these designs were defeated by the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35, the Su-33, just produced between 1989 and 1999 (not cancelled like the VTOL options), and later also by the naval variant of the MiG-29/35, the MiG-29K.

If Russia does a bid for an new VTOL fighter, very very likely it will fall to the Su-57, like previous bids failed in the 1980s to the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35. The best option for Russia is to use the Su-57 for its future aircraft carriers, even, if possible, without need of a naval variant.

1) MiG-29K was accepted in 2010.  Yak-141 was stopped in 1991 and development stalled by end of 80's. So what actually you compare?


2) I'd love still see at least one historian, subject matter expert  or top brass opinion roving that Yak was rejected because was poor performing. So far seen none but maybe this statement really exist?  

3)  V?STOL fighter is planned. That what was stated so far.  I presume lighter and cheaper then Su-57, more like S-54 and also for export. Yak has now little weight as planes' manufacturer so cake could go to Su as only real fighter manufacturer or less probable to MiG.  

1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.

2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

eehnie wrote:
1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.

from balancer MiG-29k cockpit





MiG-29 cockpit

MiG-29


And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right?

http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/

2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?

3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized V-gen fighter?

c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?

Peŕrier wrote:No, Yak-141's tests showed it could perform vertical take offs with one ton of payload only.

To bring around 2,5 tons of payload it had to perform a 120 meters take off run

A full combat load required  a rather conventional take off run, not really short.

It was not by chance or mistake that they opted for Su-33 and Mig-29K instead of Yak-141: with the only constraint of an angled deck with arrestor gear, they got far more versatile and useful combat aircraft.

VTOL is a failed concept when referred to combat aircrafts.

Once again...

The tests were stopped, due to insufficient funds! The tests were not stopped because Yak-141 was a bad concept. In time were no money is available, only really conservative concepts comes in to reality, never a visionary concept.

The Yak-141 has two lift engines with a thrust of 41,7 kN and the main engine with 108 kN dry thrust. To start in VTOL mode you must generate more thrust, than the weight of the aircraft (force of mass is generally mass multiplied with gravitational acceleration (in Europe ~ 9,8 )). To start with a bit agilty I calculate 1 ton thrust for lift more, than mass of the aircraft...and e voila you will have a mass of ~17 tons for a vertical take off.

I don't know if it was possible to take off vertical with activated afterburner!? The tests stopped at the very beginning of test programm, due to no funds. With afterbruner the Yak-141 would have a lift thrust of 235,4 kN, that exceeds the max weight. Maybe the Yak-141 was possible to take off vertical with full payload and max. fuel?! We don't know!

By the way were was a concept for Yak-141, to be accompanied by trucks with mobile heat resistant mini start and landing place and fuel.

The Yak-141 was described by pilots as a very agile and capable fighter...by the way.

And VTOL is not a failed concept! Every STOVL from Harrier to Yak-38 was able to perform VTOL. But these aircraft had weaker engines, than Yak-141, a supersonic VTOL/STOVL. It is good to decide between STOVL and VTOL, because there are my options and not only one. Think about the airstrip is damaged or debris lies around, than your great short take off is not possible! By the way a VTOL aircraft can even land and start on the helipad of a frigate

The Su-57 is a big multi role fighter. It is capable of nearly everything and it's characteristics are great. But Russia need not only big massive fighter, they have now plenty good of them (Su-35 etc.). Russia lacks the amount of good small fighters, even the Mig-29/Mig-35 is too big. Problem of the Su-57 will be...NOT cheap!

Russia needs a small and cheap single engine fighter, very similar to F-35, but cheap. The F-35 was intended as a cheap fighter, with costs around 40 million US-$, now it's 100 million US-$.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.

from balancer MiG-29k cockpit





MiG-29 cockpit

MiG-29


And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right?

http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/

2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?

3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized  V-gen fighter?

c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?

1) Then do you mean that if we put the systems and displays that you show in the picture in a T-72 hull will fly like a MiG-29K? There is a lot more to make a MiG-29K, and many of these things are technology of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact the most important technological elements that allow the performance of the MiG-29K are outside of the picture. And yess, 4+ generation technologies are developed from a technological basis of the late 1970s early 1980s, that was 4 generation fighter technology (unlike the T-72 hull). To use the technological basis of the MiG-29/35 is what allows to the MiG-29K and the MiG-35 to be 4+ generation fighters, but is also what allows not them to be reach to be 5 generation fighters. The same with the Su-27/30/33/35. If Russia wants 5 generation fighters for its aircraft carriers neee a new design. And the Su-57 is the real project for it, while a new VTOL fighter is in zero still.

2) The work on the Project 971 and the Project 885 was not totally cancelled, it was frozen some time and was resumed long time ago, because they were better than other projects that were cancelled. There are hulls of both projects laid down in the early 1990s and finished years later. And even today there are hulls of other projects laid down in the early 90s that remain under construction without a cancellation. This is not the case of the Yak-141 and variants, that were defeated by the variants of the Su-27/30/33/35 and the MiG-29/35.

3) Then do you mean the VTOL fighter was likely to overperform the Su-57, but Russia selected wrong the project to develop as its future main fighter, misleaded by India?

The EAU is a staunch follower of the US, and it would not be a bad tactic for the US to use money of the EAU in order to distract the Russian engineers in underperforming projects. Russia is not silly and will manage it right.

It's not true that Yak-141's development was dropped for lack of fundings.

As soon as Yak-141 died, development of what would become Mig-29K started, and already in late 90's happened first trial onboard of Kuznetsov.

It could sound strange, because they never gave publicity to the development, but Mig-29K born right after Yak-141's ditching.

Why they should invest funds in Mig-29K, when there was no funds to complete Yak-141's development?

Tinkle tinkle...

Maybe because they recognized that STOL with arrestor gear was a more practical and flexible concept, and pursued with Mig-29K to get an aircraft with smaller footprint compared to Su-33, but sharing the same take off and landing characteristics.

By the way, both Su-33 and Mig-29K are credited with around 2 tons of payload when taking off from forward launching spots, give or take, meaning they need around 120 meters run to take off with such payload.

Ramp no. 3, giving around 200 meters take off run, is used mainly for greater payloads or for very unfavourable meteorological conditions.

Anyway, both Mig-29K and Su-33 grant far greater bring back capabilities, because Yak-141 showed nearly zero bring back capabilities.

That meant, any time a mission woild abort whatever the reason, the payload had to be ditched in the sea before trying to land.

The same more or less is valid for F-35B as well, in spite of 20+ years of technological advancements.

The british developed the "rolling landing" right to try improve F-35B's bring back characteristics.

And they opted for STOVL (F-35B) instead of catapults plus arrestor gear (F-35C) because without a nuclear power plant there is little chance to power steam catapults, and even EM catapults would be tricky to provide with the required electric power.

They discarded nuclear propulsion because deemed too expensive, everything else followed almost automatically, the F-35B being already on the drawing boards for the US Marine and their 12 LHD/LHA.

And without the US Marine's requirement, the british plus the italians, the australians and the japanese could never be able to fund a new STOVL combat aircraft for maybe 8 flat tops all togheter.

So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

What would its development alone cost?

Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.

...So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

What would its development alone cost?

Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.

Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

Having 4 LHDs is much preferable and cost efficient than having one massive supercarrier white elephant armed with obsolete aircraft. And I doubt they will stop with 4.

Having a single Kuznetzov-class ship is already problematic enough. Imagine having another single ship class in use only this one being more expensive and complicated one?

And any STOVL aircraft designed for carrier use can be easily converted into standard light fighter for airforce and export.

I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.

Peŕrier wrote:I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.

And these numbers are more than enough for Russian Navy.

You are trying to apply US Naval doctrine to Russia. One look at the map will tell you those two things are not compatible.

Vessel numbers > vessel size, simple as that.

As long as they carry anti-sub helicopters and marine troops they are good. Fixed winged aircraft are bonus.

As for converting VTOLs to conventional aircraft, just because it wasn't done before does not mean it won't be done.

Why would it be a problem anyway? Simplifying device is easier than doing opposite.

PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

Fake, fake, fake, fake


http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.

Quite the contrary: it would be a waste of resources.

A modest 2 aircrafts CAP require at the very least 8 aircrafts to be mantained.

Actually, because every N cycles each aircraft has to be grounded for 24 hours, give or take, to perform in depth checks and maintenance, 10 aircrafts is a more sound number.

So any ship embarking only a dozen aircrafts or less would have just the bare minimum to provide a minimal air cover to itself, or even less than the bare minimum.

So a huge investment to get a mere 2 aircrafts covering the flat top itself, and maybe 2 more ready to take off on alarm.

Any real air cover for a task force would require additional aircrafts to be dispatched to defend other naval assets of the task force, a task impossible to accomplish with less than 18-20 aircrafts.

Please note no offensive/strike role is considered, just mere defense, that with a dozen or less aircrafts falls back to self defense of the flat top itself and jusyt closely near other ships.

Something that any real carrier, no matter how little, would make a short work of it without any effort.

Under 16-18 combat aircrafts, it would be a matter of hour before attrition would stop any air cover, without even the need to actually shoot down the aircrafts.

To get a safer margin, something north of 20 aircrafts would guarantee either a 4 aircrafts CAP always available, plus a additional 2 ready to take off on alarm, or 2 distinct 2 airplanes CAPs, one for the flat top itself the other for a separated group of the naval task force, not ideal but sometimes dictated by the tactical situation.

Again no offensive role, but an air defense no easily overwhelmed and able to withstand some attrition.

Peŕrier wrote:

..................

Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

Days of naval air warfare are long over.

Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

1) Scouting

2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.

Good luck.

Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.

Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.

Agreed.

If only they could invent some kind of ship that could move underwater and attack carriers from below...

But alas, how could any nation possibly build such technological wonder?

Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.

Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.

1) how many aircraft battles on high seas have you seen after 45? None because there will be none. No need for this. In 30 you'd probably be zeal opponent of aircraft carriers stating that Russia has to build as many battleships as possible.

2) Long arm? That's the idea. Zircon with 1000km range can be directed by UAC with AWACS abilities. Like V/STOL Fregat cruising over group for hours. With 32-48 UKSK-M can provide great deal of AAD and AShM power. Cany any plane get closer then 1000 km to Russian? If so maybe Russian 20 can fire hypesonic ASchM misiles too. (1500 km range).

So who's got longer d...direct range?

3) Maybe less V/STOL per one carrier but more versatility for class of ships. Wasp Class LHD can carry 20-24 F-35B but can also have other roles similar to Juan Carlos Class.

PapaDragon wrote:
3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

damn I have spilled coffee on my keyboard again.

eehnie wrote:

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.

Peŕrier wrote:Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.

With barriers of "dwelling fish like torpedo mines" or hypersonic missiles,sub robo drones  and own subs covered by own ASW choppers this is not really that hard in Arctic to block US entrance into area. There are gonna be neither Midway 2 nor  Marian Turkeys' Shootouts  anymore.