Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Peŕrier wrote:

....

And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.

And for which roles and where should it sail? the Northern Route? Baltic? or be the white elephant near Kamchatka?  And here we get back to basics: Russian Navy has no need for AC besides protection of own subs and geopolitical dick waving. 

Besides Russia has no budget to build  "pure ACs" and "pure LPHDs" not to mention that USN Wasp class LHD has 20 F-35Bs in "sea control" missions. And no angled deck. Why? no need for arrester gear. No need for catapult either 
 
For me Russia has 2 options it would be 2+ of  30,000-40000tones displacement or max 2 of 60-70,000 tons class

ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

#1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
#2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.

All the design bureaus were merged by Putin in 2006 (UAC). Economically they are a unity. Still as bureaus there is some independence and increasing specialisation, but at this point there is enough work to keep them very busy until 2025.

1.- Irkut (Yakovlev) (Airliners and Trainers): MS-21. Likely CRAIC joint venture wil have support from Yakovlev.
2.- Ilyushin (Transport aircrafts): A number of transport aircrafts in development.
3.- MiG (Fighter Interceptors): MiG-41
4.- Tupolev (Strategic Bombers): Tu-PAK-DA
5.- Sukhoi (Fighters and Fighter Ground Attack): Su-57 (begin of serial production). Likely MiG and Tupolev will have also support from Sukhoi.

To note that the Ministry of Defense talking about orders of the L-410, SR-10 and Diamond DA42 is bad news for Yakovlev. This project would be fairly distracting for Yakovlev.

Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds, I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.

Move that to any situation at sea and having aircraft you can send to investigate offers flexibility and critical information to the commanders of those vessels and that naval group... information sending a small corvette to investigate cannot match.

a) Russia cannot and in our lifetime unlikely can afford so many ACs as US. Thus every try to counter US CSG in Midway style is doomed for failure

Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

b) Russia's doctrine focuses on sea denial not sea control and if you look currently every ship or plane is or will be platform to long-arm precision weapons. With 1500 km hypersonic antishp airborne missiles you dont really need so much AA cover by own fighters, do you?

During WWIII the goal will be to defeat NATO vessels... big and small and the optimum way to do that is at extended range with powerful missiles... not aircraft which are slower and much more vulnerable, yet likely not more effective.

During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.

c) there are drones for surveillance drones

Yes, they will most likely have them too.

3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

Russia will actually be getting LHDs and STOVL aircraft at some point in the future.

They didn't get them last time.

The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

What a waste of money.

Mistral funds are supposed to be used for russian counterpart which will cost much more as they will need to do the R&D.

They have full design information for the Mistral... a Russification of that would suffice.... perhaps a nuke engine for endurance and speed, and better defensive array of weapons and sensors, and ice operations capability too.

and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC

WOW... amazing... I am totally converted.... what was its fuel weight and weapon load?

It probably had quarter tanks and no weapons and was therefore not a weapon of war.

The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

The Russian navy can't afford either.

I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part. This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?

#3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime

You could turn that around and say the Russian Navy does not spend money to upgrade or improve aircraft until it is in a corner with a gun to its head so what sort of future could a VSTOL aircraft have with them?

The UAE will buy 50 and the Russian Navy will buy 12... 6 for each Mistralski and it will be the most expensive aircraft in Russian history.

The magical formula of Papadragon: The UAE will pay the cost.

Yeah... as part of the contract they could get them made in France with their Mistrals... or not.

GarryB wrote:

Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds,  I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.

and sending drone doesn't count? 

Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

as one of roles very true

During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs   means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.

Agree. This was called "geopolitical dick waving" wasnt it? 

3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

Nmm neither Zircons nor GZURs or MiG-41 don't exist yet too. MiG 29k  is form 70s. Accepting it on 2010 is only because almost 20 years project was not funded. Russians buily 24 for own needs and not going to buy anymore.  I wonder why?

Probably you did not check details: STOL without ski jump for  Yak-141 was 120m,  for MiG-29k with ski jump is 200m If those 80m of ship and vertical landing ability i\means noting for fleet you're probably right. 


BTW In 2030s you want to relay on 60th years old fighter machine?! 

Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

why they shpild have? they can get STOL

The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

Because in 2025 most of aviation plants will have not much to do? because Russia still needs light Vgen fighter?  also fo rexport? because only fanbois can rely on MiG29K , then why not on Po-2

Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

What a waste of money.

how do you know that no customers? Besides you never checked about Wasp LHD class? neither Canberra, Izumo or Juan Carlos? Wasp is to have sea control missions (i.e. light carrier with 20 fighters wing) or  LHD missions. What s the difference with Kuznetsov with 24 fighters? 

The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

The Russian navy can't afford either.

Hilarious is that some of us dont recognize need of LHDs/light carriers/ASW ships for Russia.  And dont accept the fact that for some reasons many fleets opt for F-35B nor MiG-29k or F-18. 

I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?

 V/STOL or STOVL both can start and land vertically it doesn't mean they have to do it every time.  Nothing tells me it will be before 2025s or even 2030s. Whe did I say this? So what's the problem? 

[/quote]

"The Yak-41 never an operational aircraft so estimates on its performance will only ever just be that... estimates from a company relying on getting to make some for the Russian military..."

Those estimates r based on trials already conducted. If they r later found to be exaggerated, the loss of face & future contracts will be catastrophic, to say the least!

Yak-141 combat radius
351nm (650km) VTO range at sea level, no external weapons
372nm (690km) with 4,409lb (2,000kg) weapon load and take-off run of 394ft (120m)
755nm (1,400km) at 32,808-39,370ft (10-12,000m)
1,133nm (2,100km) max range, with external fuel and short take-off
755nm (1,400km) with vertical takeoff and internal fuel
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-141.htm

MiG-29K Combat radius: 850 km (528 mi; 459 nmi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K#Specifications_(MiG-29K)

CTOL Su-33 Maximum Range: 1,987 nm
[combat radius = ~1/2 of that, or 993.5 nm, lightly armed]
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=196

F-35A [more capable than STOVL F-35B] Combat radius: 669 nmi interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi for internal air to air configuration  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)

The U.S Marine Corps plans to disperse its F-35Bs among forward deployed bases to enhance survivability while remaining close to a battlespace, similar to RAF Harrier deployment late in the Cold War which relied on the use of off-base locations that offered short runways, shelter, and concealment. Known as distributed STOVL operations (DSO), Marine F-35Bs would sustain operations from temporary bases in allied territory within the range of hostile ballistic and cruise missiles, but be moved between temporary locations inside the enemy's 24- to 48-hour targeting cycle. This strategy accounts for the F-35B's short range, the shortest of the three variants, with mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps) accommodating KC-130 and MV-22 Osprey aircraft to rearm and refuel the jets, as well as littoral areas for sea links of mobile distribution sites on land. M-Farps could be based on small airfields, multi-lane roads, or damaged main bases, while F-35Bs would return to U.S. Navy ships, rear-area U.S. Air Force bases, or friendly carriers for scheduled maintenance; metal planking would be needed to protect unprepared roads from the F-35B's engine exhaust, which would be moved between sites by helicopters, and the Marines are studying lighter and more heat-resistant products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B
[The RF could do similar things with her STOVLs]

China is also developing new STOVL fighter for its Navy
A STOVL fighter gives a significant edge to a military due to its capability to operate from small surfaces, like an amphibious warship or an helicopter carrier, which are comparatively low cost platforms as compared to an aircraft carrier. While China is operationalizing its first aircraft carrier, the CNS Liaoning, it will take considerable time before more such warships are put into operation.
The PLA article explains that the STOVL aircraft will cover this gap in the Navy's combat capability and address the absence of such a weapon in the PLA's arsenal.  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-developing-new-stovl-fighter-for-navy-similar-to-americas-f-35b-aircraft/articleshow/47266118.cms

Sounds familiar?!
The Yak-141 has even better performance & can carry heavier war load than the MiG-29K; the Su-33 has bigger combat radius but can't do CTOL off STOBAR while armed with more than a few AAMs.
Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Sounds familiar?!
The Yak-141 has even better performance & can carry heavier war load than the MiG-29K; the Su-33 has bigger combat radius but
can't do CTOL off STOBAR while armed with more than a few AAMs.
Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

It's wrong.

The "lightly armed" Su-33, takes off with a 120 run with full air-to-air armament, outperforming in range, dynamic performances and bring back capabilities the Yak-141 taking off with the same 120 meters run.

The Mig-29K accomplish take or give the same, maybe some better payload.

From ramp number 3 on Kuznetsov, with around 200 meters take off run, both Su-33 and Mig-29 outperform Yak-141 taking off with the same 200 meters run on every possible parameter.

With added advantages given by commonalities with existing land based fighter aircrafts, and the always crucial parameter of the bring back payload factor.

With a Yak-141, any sortie would end with the ditching in the sea of most if not all of the payload, having just huge costs even on peacetimes missions.

That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future!
http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/yak-141.php:

PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 1850 km/h 1150 mph
Ceiling 15500 m 50850 ft
Range w/max.fuel 2100 km 1305 miles
Range w/max.payload 1400 km 870 miles
ARMAMENT 1 x 30mm cannon, 1000kg (VTOL) or 2650kg (STOL) of weapons on six hardpoints

Peŕrier wrote:


It's wrong.

The "lightly armed" Su-33, takes off with a 120 run with full air-to-air armament, outperforming in range, dynamic performances and bring back capabilities the Yak-141 taking off with the same 120 meters run.

Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg 
mass
Yak ~ 16,000kg
Su-33 ~  26000kh

Perrier wrote:
The Mig-29K accomplish take or give the same, maybe some better payload.

Wrong. Start (with AFAIK ski jump) is ~ 200m for MiG. There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!

Perrier wrote:
With added advantages given by commonalities with existing land based fighter aircrafts, and the always crucial parameter of the bring back payload factor.

Wrong, for fleet vertical landing and 120m or shorter take of is an important quality. It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example. 
Thus USMC, Italian navy, Spanish Navy and Royal Navy and soon perhaps Japanese, Korean. Australian have chosen worse option? really? 

perrier wrote:
With a Yak-141, any sortie would end with the ditching in the sea of most if not all of the payload, having just huge costs even on peacetimes missions.

Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons. 

Costs higher why? MiG is new and cheap?having separate ships for LDH, ASW helicopter carriers and pure AC is cheaper? 

Tsavo Lion wrote:That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future! 

I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.

Thanks! The land-based Yak-43 would have

The main engine ..based on the Samara NK-321 three-shaft augmented turbofan with a takeoff rating of 24,980 kg (55,077 lb). This same engine is used to power the Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-43

For comparison, the Yak-141 main engine can give ~2x less:

Dry thrust: 108 kN (24,300 lbf)  
Thrust with afterburner: 152 kN (34,170 lbf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Specifications_(Yak-41)

You are wrong, under any possible and conceivable reason.

There is no russian F-35B.

So unless the russians are going to purchase the F-35B, there is no comparison to make.

The F-35B itself has almost no bring back capabilities when landing vertically, the british have been developing the so called "rolling landing" technique exactly to improve to some extent this crucial parameter, in order to avoid to ditch hundreds of thousands of dollars, or pounds, in armament every time the aircraft has to come back with some ordnance still on board.

Mi-29K, exactly as Su-33, take offs either from ramp number 1 and 2 (both 120 meters take off runs) or ramp number 3 (200 meters take off run).

Onboard of INS Vikramaditya the very same Mi-29-Ks use two ramps to take off, the forward one with 145 meters take off run, and the back one with around 200 meters take off run. Again, the forward is used mainly with Air-to-Air payloads, the back one with far heavier air-to-surface payloads.

Vikramaditya by the way operates with mainly far worse meteorological conditions for jet aircrafts than in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean, with high temperatures and low air pressure prevailing most of the time.

Mig-29K costed fairly little on development, and shares most of their electronics with last iterations of the Mig-29 family. In other words, it costed nuts compared to the development from scratch of a new type of aircraft, and it still enjoy the cost savings granted by commonality in terms both of support and future upgrades.

Vertical landing are a niche feature, that to be somewhat useful requires a good number of suitable ships. Without such a good number of ships, it would be just a stunt without any meaningful practical application.

Up to today, Russia has exactly zero ships able to deploy such wunderwaffe.

In the future, maybe, Russia could have three or four such ships, provided they choice to build them large enough to be able to employ at least an handful of STOVL fighters. That would mean from around 30.000 tons upwards.

Because a high performance fighter, designed from scratch, would cost on developement alone some billions dollars even in Russia, and with three or four LHD the highest number of aircraft required wouldn't exceed the 40 airframes mark, those aircrafts would cost some tens millions each on development alone.

A very sensitive choice, isn't it?

The F-35B engine can give less than the 1 on the Yak-43 (see my post above):

Performance
Maximum thrust: 41,000 lbf (182 kN) max, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) intermediate, 40,650 lbf (180.8 kN) hover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Performance

They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.

Well, let's say they'll do an hell of a job, and will develop an high performance STOVL fighter with just 5 billions dollars.

That still would account for around 50 millions dollars each airframe on development costs alone, even building 100 airframes, wouldn't it?

Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

Those responsible for Russia's defenses should care.

Money are always to be spent on the most effective way.

How much to spend is a separate argument, but to spend wisey and effectively is a nobrainer.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

The judge is still out whether a Shtorm class carrier with navalized Pak-fa's would be significantly more expensive - since it's a clear superior solution. I mean you could adapt anything in the Russian air force to a carrier like Shtorm. Su-34's would be a good candidate as well for strike missions.

Even if it's not, by the time it sails, the RF may have lost something of greater value on the world stage that would cost even more to recover.
Recall their loss of $Bs in Iraq & Libya contracts as a result of their weaker navy. In Syria they went to damage control in the nick of time!

This also a good point.

By the time a new STOVL aircraft would be operative, and the related ships built and inducted in service, it would take a couple of decades.

Let's see: F-35 (as a whole) started it's development in 1992, the first flight demonstrator took off in 2000 and first real prototype took off in 2006, first operational aircrafts were built in 2017.

But the russians, without doubt, will halve every timeframe.

Let's say they start development of a new STOVL fighter in 2018, they will have a first flight demonstrator ready in 2022, the first prototype will take off in 2025 and first serial aircrafts will be built in 2030.

It sound outstanding, isn't it?

It'll take even less than 1/2 the time- the US didn't have STOVL & used
Yakovlev help. STOBAR TAKRs/carriers will also take le$$ time to build.
Otherwise, do u think they r idiots to have & announce STOVL plans?

You really expect them to build a new STOVL engine for a new airframe with supercruise reqs etc, etc.....in 5 years?

Good luck, so spending far less they will develop a new aircraft in far less than half the time.

Next step? Time travel technology?

They are not stupid, just I do not believe they ever meant to really develop a STOVL fighter.

Expecially they do not mean that "V" (that's for "Vertical, not for "Vendetta", of course).

A VTOL drone, even a combat drone, yes.

It could be, performances are not very critical in drones, because at last they could be regarded as expendables.

Expendable, this is the magic word: an UAV lost in action is acceptable, a fighter with its crew is not.

So a VTOL UAV, or even an UCAV, could be well within both rationality and feasibility.

By the way, it could turn actually in a shared program between Army and Navy, and even the VKS, because each armed force is rushing to field UAVs and UCAVs for a moltitude of missions.

A manned, high performances STOVL combat aircraft, no.

it would be a waste of resources, there is simply no rational behind such a choice.

Neither operational, nor economical.

PapaDragon wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:You really expect them to build a new STOVL engine for a new airframe with supercruise reqs etc, etc.....in 5 years?

I expect them to do it in time it takes them to design and build LHD which is lot more than 5 years.

They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.

You mean those guys doesn't care about the engineering problems an the laws of nature, any decision by them is final and all natural law has to bend in accordance : )

Those estimates r based on trials already conducted. If they r later found to be exaggerated, the loss of face & future contracts will be catastrophic, to say the least!

It was never fitted with a full avionics suite... there were already plenty of exaggerated claims like it could take off from any field...

Look at information about the F-35B... can take off from strips of road.... as long as you put down pieces of heat resistant metal to protect the roads.... in other words can take off from pre fabricated airstrips of special heat resistant metal...

Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

A Yak-41 today would be worse than a MiG-29K2.

What they need now is a light 5th gen fighter... making it VTOL will make it weak and limited... and it is going to take 10 years to design and get even close to serial production level.

MiG has a light 5th gen fighter design... that would be much quicker to get into service but I seriously doubt it is VTOL.

That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future!

So you think developing a 5th gen VTOL fighter is cheaper than fixing a cable arresting system?

They have land based cable arresting systems you realise?

It was just something that couldn't be fixed off the coast of Syria... they didn't need to redesign the whole ship.

Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg

Don't be a stats fanboi... the Yak-41 would have two R-77s and four R-73s, so we are talking about 350kgs for the two BVR missiles and about 450kgs for the four WVR missiles. The Su-33 will likely have 4 R-27ER missiles and 2 R-27ET missiles and four R-73s, so 350kgs for each R-27E and 450kgs of WVR missiles so the Yak-41 will have about 900kgs of payload and the Flanker will have about 2,2 tons of weapons.

It is pretty clear which offers the best payload performance...

There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!

It only happened because it was cheap and it was cheap because set up production was paid for by the Indian order.

No Indian order and no new MiGs for the Russian navy.

It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example.

You said in another thread they have no Zircon and no MiG-41... they also have no LHDs either.

Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons.

Because it does not exist right now even on paper... the cost of developing a new VSTOL fighter will be enormous and take a lot of time... the Americans could not even afford it on their own and had to force most of their allies to buy into the programme of making the F-35 and it is still stupid expensive and not that impressive.

Investing rather less money in a conventional take off light 5th gen fighter that can share all design and components with a land based equivalent that could be sold on the international market makes rather more sense. All that requires is slightly bigger carriers and EM cats which they are developing anyway.

the bigger carriers will be more useful and only slightly more expensive.... operationally compared with the fleet of other ships they would operate the difference in cost is negligible and well worth spending to get real carrier capabilities.

Costs higher why? MiG is new and cheap?having separate ships for LDH, ASW helicopter carriers and pure AC is cheaper?

MiG-29K2s are paid for and can be used for the next 10 years... it will take that long to develop a VSTOL fighter anyway.

There are no Russian ships able to carry VSTOL aircraft that don't already carry MiG-29ks anyway.

I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.

fair enough, but my opinion is that the money and cost (VSTOL aircraft crash a lot... look up the history of the Yak-38M) they would be better off keeping the helicopter carriers as helicopter carriers and have 2 proper medium carriers with the Kuznetsov also kept and upgraded with some of the stuff the new carriers will get just to test... ie EM cats and nuke propulsion.

The Mistral type helicopter carriers will have landing capability and helicopter capability and would be ideal for emergency operations/disaster and goodwill visits as well as for landing forces to deliver troops to places around the world when needed.

Aircraft carriers would be needed at the same time and for other purposes, so when landing forces you will need aircraft carriers too... not instead of.

Having three ships means two will be available and one will be in overhaul... so having three Mistral type vessels means only one helicopter lander and one carrier with maybe 6 fighters.

I would say two helicopter carriers and two real carriers means two ships landing vehicles and distributing supplies while one carrier offers air cover and support...

Thanks! The land-based Yak-43 would have

The Yak-43 is a paper project of a proposed design... I never saw anything remotely suggesting anything they could fit to balance that power at the front of the aircraft.

And steel planking would not suffice for such thrust.

There was a late model version of the M79 engine for the Yak that had 20-22 tons of thrust in a turbofan design.

They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.

If they use a development of the NK-32 engine for the VTOL role they actually have to develop it.

They can't just rock up to a Tu-160 in a hangar and unbolt and engine and just fit it into the Yak-43 and it is all done.

Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

If they bankrupt the country spending money on dead end projects then it is a problem.

They are already developing EM cats they have said as much... having a naval fixed wing plane that is almost exactly the same as a land based model saves a lot of money and time and it means a light 5th gen fighter that can be sold on the international market to all Russias allies... or just to piss off the west.

they could sell potent little fighters to Iran and Syria and North Korea... why would any of them buy a naval fighter with small payload and short range that destroys the ground it takes off from?

It'll take even less than 1/2 the time- the US didn't have STOVL & used
Yakovlev help.

They had the AV-8II which was superior in every way to the Yak-38M.

What they needed was help with the engine which they had no experience in developing... it was Rolls Royce all the way but even RR had no experience with afterburning engines and thrust vectoring nozzles.

Otherwise, do u think they r idiots to have & announce STOVL plans?

they will announce plans and they might even build prototypes but after testing will find again the VSTOL fighters and more expensive, more fragile, and less effective... once the EM cats are working they wont look back.

EM cats on a Helicopter carrier would allow MiG-29s or new 5th gen CTOBAR fighters to operate from Mistral sized vessels...

They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.

Yeah... every few years a newly elected government will start a work for the unemployment scheme where unemployed people do work to earn their unemployment payments.... problem is that there are not enough jobs and not enough people to manage all those people and it always goes tits up.

The people in power will have people from Yak and MiG coming to them with all sorts of claims and schemes... the idea of a VTOL fighter is not new and has been going around for years... the problem is that it is BS and is becoming less likely every year because now a supersonic VTOL fighter needs even more engine power which makes VTOL even less likely to be safe.

they will get to a prototype stage and it will be cancelled because it will be too expensive if the EM cats are successful they can use them on any sized ship to get aircraft airborne...

There was 0 official statement saying vstol will be used instead of mig 29k. Same, no one said they will build a carrier with vstol fighters.

The vtol fighter development is probably for their future helicopter carier like japan is doing with f35.

They will build proper carrier with most probably naval su-57 and mig-29k upgraded to 35 or a potentiel new mig.

You are all saying it's one or the other.

However this vtol will be expensive because they won't make a lot of them. The su57 is already ready and is easily navalizable with the work already made on su27/33. No need to wait 10 years for a mig.

Isos wrote:There was 0 official statement saying vstol will be used instead of mig 29k. Same, no one said they will build a carrier with vstol fighters. The vtol fighter development is probably for their future helicopter carier like japan is doing with f35.
They will build proper carrier with most probably naval su-57 and mig-29k upgraded to 35  or a potentiel new mig.

You are all saying it's one or the other.

However this vtol will be expensive because they won't make a lot of them. The su57 is already ready and is easily navalizable with the work already made on su27/33. No need to wait 10 years for a mig.

1) If Su-33 was so easy then why production was never restarted? Chinese wanted, Russia needed and ? apparently neither costs nor  size were adequate. Su-57 we'll live to see.  Though I didnt see F-22 navalized only smaller F-35 (actually smaller than F-18).


Compare place taken by F-35 and PAK FA. In this case size does matter.