Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

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).

Chinese wanted just to copy it like everything they buy from russia. This was a problem duscussed by the russian government.

I mean the work to navalize the su 27 was already done so they can use this work to navalize the su 57 faster because they are both sukhois and almost same size.

Su 33 is bigger than su 57 so if they wanted su 33 why would the size of su 57 be a problem ?

GarryB wrote:

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.

If F-35b is so limited why RAF and Royal Navy both opted only for F-35B? Same for Italian and Navy.
why you always say VTOL not V/STOL or STOVL if this fits you better. 

GarryB wrote:

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...

Load of STOL start for  Yak-141 (yak 41M was actually 141) were takne from Gordon's book 

Okb Yakovlev: A History of the Design Bureau and Its Aircraft by Yefim Gordon
Su-33 from wiki true. 


and your data is from? 

garryb wrote:

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.

Now we're talking.  Id presume UAE no w"plays India" 

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.

Nope but having "pure ACs" without any helicopter  ASW carriers or LHDs makes this very expensive adventure. Current global trend is use F-35B  on already build LHDs for a reason. Mission defined air-wing. Call it modularity if you please.



  

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.

So what is difference between F-35 and what you offer?

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.

and why do they need "real carrier" so 40-50+ fighters? 

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...

True if you go for Mistrals (14ktons displacement) if you go for kinda Wasp LHDs you can have
LHD with 6 F-35Bs
or "pure carrier" with 20F-35Bs. Sounde a bit different or not?

Actual mix depends on the mission[4] Standard Complement: 6 AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft or 6 F-35B Lightning II stealth strike-fighters 4 AH-1W/Z Super Cobra/Viper attack helicopter 12 MV-22B Osprey assault support tiltrotor 4 CH-53E Super Stallionheavy-lift helicopters 3–4 UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters Assault: 22+ MV-22B Osprey assault support tiltrotor Sea Control: 20 AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft or 20 F-35B Lightning II stealth strike-fighters 6 SH-60F/HH-60H ASWhelicopters

garryb wrote:

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.

/

not unbolt? damn this makes process a bit complicated. But NK-32k are being modernized and will be produced anyway. Modification fo engine is a bit less complicated then start in form scratch?

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.

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...

Royal Navy resigned from catapults and CATOBAR because of catapult costs. STOVL F-35Bs were just cheaper and better  

Isos wrote:

Su 33 is bigger than su 57 so if they wanted su 33 why would the size of su 57 be a problem ?

did you see picture? size comparison of Su-57 vs F-35? so instead of 10 PAK FAs you got almost 2x F35

Singular_Transform wrote:

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 : )

and which laws or nature were violated by procurement of STOVL?   

[/quote]

did you see picture? size comparison of Su-57 vs F-35? so instead of 10 PAK FAs you got almost 2x F35

Russia can't buy f 35 ... the only small fighter they could have is the mig 29k. I personnaly would take 10 Su-57 over 20 mig 29k any say.

The british chose the F-35B over the F-35C because they opted for gas turbines as a cost saving measure on Queen Elizabeth carrier.

No nuclear power plant equals no steam generators, and in turn no steam catapults.

The only alternative would have been EM catapults, but when choices had to be made there were still no operational EM catapult in the world, and without a nuclear power plant it is still tricky to say the least, to provide enough electrical power to EM catapults.

Before the british choice, the US Marine pretended a STOVL version of JSF, i.e. F-35B, because no LHD or LHA could possibly use catapults, either steam or EM powered, because of the power plants used in those ships.

Any other NATO Navy, the british as well, just practiced some good bandwagoning, i.e. they joined the US Marine's quest for operational indipendence to develop or maintain an aeronaval capability without the expenses and technical hurdles of either steam or nuclear power plant on their ships.


Otherwise they would have purchased the F-18 family long time ago, paying them a very reasonable price.

How about a navalised TU-22 wich would allow you to greatly outrange the us carriers and kill them all in a miway style battle before they have a chance to engage you.

But seriously VTOL is a wast of time money and storage space a navalised SU-57 operated form a Shtorm class is ultimatley cheaper and more effective.

So save up and buy a Shtorm class and do not get tempted by the failed concept that is VTOL.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:How about a navalised TU-22 wich would allow you to greatly outrange the us carriers and kill them all in a miway style battle before they have a chance to engage you.

But seriously VTOL is a wast of time money and storage space a navalised SU-57 operated form a Shtorm class is ultimatley cheaper and more effective.

So save up and buy a Shtorm class and do not get tempted by the failed concept that is VTOL.

Save up and buy Shtorm-class... sure, I guess it makes sense

Saving money, design, development, construction, building infrastructure, testing, etc... they should be done before century is out....maybe... 

Why not just skip all this and build Metal Gear or something, odds or getting it done are similar. 

And developing an effective VTOL capable of carying ASHMs is so much easier and cheaper and will be done overnight not to mention how the factories to produce it will magicaly apear once the first prototype does not explode on its first flight and is acepted by the Russian navy.

And then what will they fly it from I guess you could operate 1 from a Kirov but seriously?

Anyway the fact that they proposed only shtorm design proves that they are far from starting building it. They should have proposed many design like they did for lider class with different propulsion and lenght.

Shtorm has nothing official. Neither those "carrier for vtol" that you are talking about.

When they will annouce and present some official design we could talk about it. Untill that day all this is amateur talk between random guys on the net.

They said mig is working on mig 41 and on new 5th gen fighter just like they said they will work on this new vtol but until today we saw nothing and if i m not wrong they allowed money for mig 41 just recently. Like always russian talk and say a lot but not much is really done and you have to wait long time before it happens.

So let's wait for this carrier.

Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/08/it-is-official-now.html

It Is Official Now.


Read this attentively:

   KUBINKA /Moscow Region/, August 21. /TASS/. Russia is developing a prototype of a completely new vertical take-off plane on the instruction of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday. "This work has, indeed, been included in the state armament program and is being conducted on the instruction of the supreme commander-in-chief. Now work is underway to develop conceptual models and prototypes," the vice-premier said.


I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually. I can already hear sobbing and cries of desperation from all kinds of Russian navalists still enamored with the concept of Alfa-strikes and glory of the flying decks of CATOBAR carriers. I used to be a navalists myself but with the appearance of 4th generation submarines and weapons such as P-800 Onyx, I got cured and transferred from the shining light and inherent goodness of the Battle of Midway romanticism to a dark side of bookkeeping, cynical pragmatism and stand-off weapons. And I mean STAND-OFF weapons and we all know what they are.

The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not. MiG-29K is a mature program and this excellent aircraft will eventually substitute venerable SU-33s on a fully upgraded Kuznetsov, which undergoes a major refit as I type this. As per new STOVL aircraft—let's wait and see. When Yak-141 first appeared in late 1980s it was a revolutionary STOVL aircraft; who said that new one will not be.

LMFS wrote:Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/08/it-is-official-now.html

It Is Official Now.


Read this attentively:

I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually.

IMHO closer to TAKRS - VLS are modular fo ASh, AAD or ASROC type of weapons + pakets+ pantsirs. Just my guess, pseculation: it will be something on level of Groskhov M as for armament.

The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not.

Functinally OK but to me against this is cost and risk. EM Catapult in US costs 1bln USD, lasts couple of years. And is heavier and takes place. for VSTOL adding all CATOBAR stuff makes it close to F-35 so not really competitive moeny-ise plane.

Now we wait to see how long it takes them to get one in the water if they ever do.

Russia designing a STOVL isn't odd, Feelings regarding these types of warships are always mixed.

There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

@hole:

Thanks! BTW, the F-35B has no folding wings, so capacity of a LHA is rather weak:



Taking reference from plant views, the wingspan of the F-35C with folded wings is 9 m

PapaDragon wrote:
They need new transports, they need helicopter carriers so from that angle they should definitely get these built. Not really optional for them given the age of fleet.

Fighter jet carrier feature is just a bonus.

or standoff maritime platform with VSTOL edition...

Like I said before, they are doing same thing that Japanese did with Izumo-class. Makes perfect sense.

Also, new STOVL aircraft is probably tied into fact that it will use derivatives of NK-321 same as Tu-160 which has been restated recently. Two birds, one stone.

Looks like some engineers have hidden Yak-43 blueprints since 80s ;-))) me thinks Izumo is a bit too small. They will be 40-60k ranges.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

Taking into account age, size and tasks of the fleet Russia again has to rethink (IMHO) way Soviet Union did. Variation of TAKRs - but this time with LHD capabilities. VLS and modular desing make it versatile and mission equipped. Cost effectiveness.

OK Im speculating as I did with VSTOL fighter before

Talking about weak/strong points - its like comparing AK with Maxim and Mosin. Maxim is much better in sustained RoF, Mosin outclasses in range. Still AK is excellent in its role.

LMFS wrote:@hole: Thanks! BTW, the F-35B has no folding wings, so capacity of a LHA is rather weak:

America Class LHA can carry 23 F-35. Is more less size of Russian fixed wing contingent which won war in Syria.
For Midway too little tho      

rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.

Taking reference from plant views, the wingspan of the F-35C with folded wings is 9 m

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings? But F-22 doesn't and for some reason want navalized. BTW Su-57 wingspan is like 14m and length 20m (22 with this funnu needle  vs 15,7m/11m   wingspan  f-35[/quote]
[/quote]

LMFS wrote: BTW I am confused, for me the Kuz is a TAKR.

my bad, I mixed wit h Kiev Class dismantling ASh. She still has  12 Granit's VLS.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
America Class LHA can carry 23 F-35. Is more less size of Russian fixed wing contingent which won war in Syria.
For Midway too little tho      

I agree expeditionary forces do not need huge air wings like in a super carrier (or not always), I have been advocating for compact, multifunctional carriers. Just wanted to point out that current STOVL-carrying flat tops do not carry many aircraft, since you were claiming that Su-57 type aircraft would be too big to get a decent air wing in a compact carrier. No Midways, that can be spared with just one Poseidon  

rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.

Nooo, you are not exaggerating a bit right?  

Su-57 is 19.8 m long, MiG-29 is 17,3 m, Yak-141 was 18.4 m, F-35 is 15,5 m. So Su-57 is 28% longer than the thick and short F-35 which is hopeless as supersonic fighter... but we don't know if it would be narrower. F-35C is 20% wider than Su-33 once folded, mind you!

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings? But F-22 doesn't and for some reason want navalized. BTW Su-57 wingspan is like 14m and length 20m (22 with this funnu needle  vs 15,7m/11m   wingspan  f-35

No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized... aero was not up o the task to start with apparently, and of course the type of undercarriage is incompatible with carrier landings. This, apart from other political issues that may have been more important than mere technical considerations. On the other hand, Su-57 has LEVCONS to handle approaching at high AoAs, massive lifting body and extremely robust undercarriage. Seems relatively close to a possible naval fighter to me, and I would be surprised that some basic compatibility was not a requirement from the very beginning. A carrier designed with it in mind could house good amounts of them (new light carrier with 44 k would have one squadron Su-33 and one squadron MiG-29 apparently, plus 4 AWACS and one squadron helos)

It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.

Yeah... missiles can do everything... don't bother making it manouverable or giving it a gun... isn't that what they said about the F-4?

Because the F-15 that replaced it was manouverable and had a gun... odd that really...

Let me guess "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.

Funny because I have not heard the EMALS is cancelled....

If they are going ahead with this VSTOL fighter then it is rather likely it is the plan B.

Remember the Yak-41 was funded too... right up until they cancelled it.

The main thing that kills the VSTOL F-35 is the enormous space taken up by the large lift fan that is dead weight during normal flight, but such a fan is critical because it blows normal temperature air downwards... if that goes into the air intake at the front there are no problems... if it uses two small jet engines like the Yak-41 did then that hot air will stall the main engine... stall at landing is fatal for VSTOL jet.

Even if they are they will still be wasting far less money than they would if they tried to do super-carrier.

Of course... a super cheap 5th gen fighter that takes off vertically and will be produced in numbers of perhaps 50 or 100 max... yeah... that is going to be real cheap... Of course if they want to operate them for more than 5 years they will need to make 200... to allow for operational losses...

Feels good man....

You mean to know Putin is not always right?

It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.

So if you are going to be setting the bar so low why bother at all?

UAVs can detect threats and targets and ship based missiles can be directed to intercept targets out to 600km...

More importantly, it can be used as basis for excellent single-engine light fighter. Replace VTOL engine with standard one and replace all associated equipment (fans or front engines) with fuel tank. Done.

Hahahahahahahahaaha..... YOU JUST SUGGESTED RUSSIA BUILD AN F-35!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! are you drinking right now?

Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?

Why not try to find some Nazi plans from WWII to base it on?

I mean no progress in design or manufacture or materials has been made recently...

Maybe the Chinese will build them for Russia?

That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some. OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?

Yeah... that is what Russia needs... very short range low payload fighters... they seem to prefer Flankers to Fulcrums... but lets equip them with something even less capable than a MiG-35... I mean how could they possibly manage a long runway in Russia... there is simply no room... or am I confusing Russia with Hong Kong?

Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B.

Who told you that?

The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 but has more powerful engines... and is getting even more powerful engines soon...

Guess why USN builds 100k monsters?

Because their so called fighters have 10 ton payload capacities they use to bomb the natives in their colonial wars on the other side of the planet.

Invasions require a lot of planes.

For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?

152mm artillery piece is superior in power and range to any assault rifle... but they have different uses. MiG-31 is an excellent interceptor but not a fighter.

Stealth is useful... but not everything and a lot of the time an unnecessary extra expense.

The Su-57 has already been developed... using your example... the Russians have AK-74s and PKP machineguns... if you want another weapon developed from scratch to do both jobs... lets call it the XM25... then you are wasting money and time... an AK-74 with rail mounts and decent optics would be a naval Su-57... your new VSTOL fighter is an XM25....

LMFS wrote:

rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.

Nooo, you are not exaggerating a bit right?  

Su-57 is 19.8 m long, MiG-29 is 17,3 m, Yak-141 was 18.4 m, F-35 is 15,5 m. So Su-57 is 28% longer than the thick and short F-35 which is hopeless as supersonic fighter... but we don't know if it would be narrower. F-35C is 20% wider than Su-33 once folded, mind you!

Su-33 / MiG-29K are not in picture anymore mind you. I took F-35 as an example of modern design and more less features you could exp3ct with new fighter hre.
Talking about size:

F-35 after wiki:
Length: 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[c] (10.7 m)

Su-57
Length: 19.8 m (65 ft) - without dingy (pitot tube? antena? )
Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)

wingspanratio: 1,3
length ratio: 1.26 (with thingy: 1.4)

surface ratio: 1.64
1.82 with thingy


so from 20 you have 10-12 fighters on board.

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings?

No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized...

[/quote]

looks like Su-57 undergone similar exercise and perhaps that's why this decision.

This, apart from other political issues that may have been more important than mere technical considerations.

Same here - light fighter of new generation more cost effective and great asset for fleet.



[qute] A carrier designed with it in mind could house good amounts of them (new light carrier with 44 k would have one squadron Su-33 and one squadron MiG-29 apparently, plus 4 AWACS and one squadron helos)[/quote]

mind Su-33/ MiG-29k are out of pic. Check Borisov statement last year. AWACS - in net centric world swarm of drones linked to control room on AC is air replacement and less costly and much less space requirements.
Wtih size of AC we both of course speculating bt it is nice exercise anyway

GarryB wrote: Let me guess  "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.

Funny because I have not heard the EMALS is cancelled....
[/quote]
and I ve never heard it was ordered ether      

Remember the Yak-41 was funded too... right up until they cancelled it

and Soviet Union was dissembled because of this? mind both were about same time.

Of course... a super cheap 5th gen fighter that takes off vertically and will be produced in numbers of perhaps 50 or 100 max... yeah... that is going to be real cheap... Of course if they want to operate them for more than 5 years they will need to make 200... to allow for operational losses...

are you saying Russians didn't calculate/brainstorm over and over  cost/benefits before taking decision? just Putins after-party hangover? and who told you it cannot be ised as army fighter replacing MiG-35 . Mind why so short series is bought?

Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?

Why not try to find some Nazi plans from WWII to base it on?

Surely, Tu-160M2 is like nazi project ot you? MiG-35 even older design? af forgot designs are updated iwth new materials and avionics and weapons.  

All in all deal with this decision is made       e

Yeah... that is what Russia needs... very short range low payload fighters...

F-35B has payload same as MiG-29K and about same range.

 but lets equip them with something even less capable than a MiG-35... I mean how could they possibly manage a long runway in Russia... there is simply no room... or am I confusing Russia with Hong Kong?

You do In Russia in cold climate (Arctic) are fairly hard to make, number of bases will grow.  Long runway are also more expensive in building. We do not know yet will the new fighter will be less capable then MiG-35.

NK-32
thrust  137 kN   with afterburner  245 kN


MiG-35  
thrust2x55kN or  88kN (186kN)  with afterburner.

Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B.

Who told you that?

Take Off - 350m. Wiki for example.

The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 but has more powerful engines... and is getting even more powerful engines soon...

soon = after 2023

Guess why USN builds 100k monsters?

Invasions require a lot of planes.

wrong, because they are exclusive      

And if new fighter is not going to be produced by Yak but MiG?


Last year Butoski's drawing of new MiG LMFS


drawing form 2017

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2430909.html



Yak STOL concept in article on iParalay site. Article form 2009...






speed max. 2100 km / h
range 4000 km





and Izdleye 201 (Yak-43)

That Yak canard is pretty interesting.
No V, just STOL right?

Big canards, big flaps, limited thrust vectoring on the main nozzle & bleed air from the compressor run forward to a what?
Fan powered by the compressed air? Combustion chamber directly producing thrust? or With a turbine also powering a fan?

This is in my thinking the right way to do it: Design explicitly for a ski-jump takeoff & slow rolling landing with wings always expected to be significantly contributing to lift.
Should mean significantly less downside than full Vertical capability.

Hot air forward of the engine inlets is problematic
Was watching a video the other day of one of the Skunkworks engineers who did propulsion for K-35 program & he was very explicit that cold air fan was key to X-35 winning, specifically blocks the hot air from swirling forward to be ingested.
If its always moving forward at decent speed (STOL no V) that'd be much less of an issue though.

hoom wrote:That Yak canard is pretty interesting.
No V, just STOL right?

project 1 (white plastic :D:D ) project 2 down is VSTOL AFAIK with NK-32 modification (245kN thrust...)

Big canards, big flaps, limited thrust vectoring on the main nozzle & bleed air from the compressor run forward to a what?
Fan powered by the compressed air? Combustion chamber directly producing thrust? or With a turbine also powering a fan?

This is in my thinking the right way to do it: [].
If its always moving forward at decent speed (STOL no V) that'd be much less of an issue though.

Sounds reasonable, and cheaper :D:D nobody optimizes better Russian Army than Suilianov. But izdleye 201 had also VSTOL version - I hope there will be both

I was just struck by similarities of STOL version and JANES Butowski's drawing about LMFS... supposedly MiG LMFS