Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Yak-41 was cancelled by Jelzin.

project 1 (white plastic Very Happy:D:D ) project 2 down is VSTOL

Are you positive they're different?
Drawing looks like its illustrating the white plastic model.

Hole wrote:Yak-41 was cancelled by Jelzin.

it was his t.reasonable decision

hoom wrote:

project 1 (white plastic Very Happy:D:D ) project 2 down is VSTOL

Are you positive they're different?
Drawing looks like its illustrating the white plastic model.

It was in iparalay or at least I identified like that. Perhaps I was wrong and this is one and the same fighter.
In every case there were two options described. And if you look at reasonable sources Yak-43 did exist.


Its gonna be funny if new VSTOL fighter will be MiG instead of Yak

GarryB wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.....
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...
.......

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned... (but I doubt Chinese will be buying that hulk this time)

GunshipDemocracy wrote: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.

Who says that? MiG-29K were received in 2016 IIRC.
F-35 is an example of an airframe that is not good for AD... fineness ratio too low, optimization for subsonic strike. And weapon bays small. I sincerely hope they do not repeat that, they cannot print the money the same way or force other countries to buy their planes.

Talking about size... 

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

Cannot agree, see my numbers in the previous post. If you have a 20 m space you only fit one plane, be it 19 m long or 15. A Su-33 is narrower than a F-35 in any version and by a good margin so it depends in implementation, not only in size of airframe. Considering the low wing loading of the Su-57, a fold as small as the one of Su-33 is thinkable.

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

?? Do you have any source? There has been no decision not to navalize the PAK-FA BTW.

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      

Can agree in distributed AWACS role in the future. As said MiG-29s are brand new and apparently the Su-33s will remain in the K for a while.

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

I love aircraft concepts but those ones are simply rather generic delta-canard platforms, similar to what Lockheed did before JSF (CALF if I am not wrong). Not seeing any evidence this is going to be developed, in fact they are promoting the MiG-35 as the future... maybe they just try to hide the development of a new fighter in order not to harm the MiG-35's export potential? If MiG had a project like LMFS at hands the -35 would be a lesser concern I guess...

Is there any hint as to how the Yak proposal is expected to take off or land vertically? Do you happen to know what is the propulsion concept, apart from the NK-32 as main engine?

LMFS wrote: Cannot agree, see my numbers in the previous post. If you have a 20 m space you only fit one plane, be it 19 m long or 15.

and if you have 18 m you cannot fit any 19m and you can 15m right?

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

?? Do you have any source? There has been no decision not to navalize the PAK-FA BTW.

Source: no orders and order to build VSTOL fighter instead of Su-57?
By analogy to F-22 looks like large stealth fighters  are not really suitable for small decks of ships.

Can agree in distributed AWACS role in the future. As said MiG-29s are brand new and apparently the Su-33s will remain in the K for a while.

Deputy Prime Minister general Borisov disagrees with you tho.


Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade.
Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them.


https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

PapaDragon wrote:

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned...

Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or 6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and if you have 18 m you cannot fit any 19m and you can 15m right?

You can fit two Su-33 side by side but only one F-35

Source: no orders and order to build VSTOL fighter instead of Su-57?
By analogy to F-22 looks like large stealth fighters  are not really suitable for small decks of ships.

It will be ten years at least to develop the STOVL fighter, so they better get started. While Su-33 gets old, Su-57K or whatever it would be called can be developed in a much shorter time, since the baseline model is ready. Don't know what will happen but it is too soon to say Su-57 is incompatible with carrier operation. STOVL model as said is relevant to LHDs and similar ships, not to sky jump equipped carriers, from which fully loaded fighters can take-off perfectly with a high T/W ratio.

Deputy Prime Minister general Borisov disagrees with you tho.

Like said, the MiG-29Ks have spent two years out of 40 of operational life, and until 2030 lots of things will happen. As we have seen, Borisov likes to speak loud and not always 100% accurately, like his comments on the Armata, affecting the credibility of Russia just days before the first batch gets ordered... I keep my opinion on the guy for myself.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned...

Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or 6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

16 billion??? Damn, that thing would make Ford-class look dirt cheap....

GunshipDemocracy wrote:....
Deputy Prime Minister general Borisov disagrees with you tho.

Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade.
Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them...

Looks like Borisov for some reason stopped being luddite fan of obsolete material. What happened all of a sudden?

Did someone give him a call telling him to stop being flat-out idiot lest he loses his fancy job that he is not qualified to perform anyway?

PapaDragon wrote:

Looks like Borisov for some reason stopped being luddite fan of obsolete material. What happened all of a sudden?

Did someone give him a call telling him to stop being flat-out idiot lest he loses his fancy job that he is not qualified to perform anyway?

He was qualified for both previous and current jobs. As PR he has certainly place for improvement tho.

LMFS wrote:

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

I love aircraft concepts but those ones are simply rather generic delta-canard platforms, similar to what Lockheed did before JSF (CALF if I am not wrong).

form Yefim Gordon's book

n 1983-84 the Yakovlev OKB embarked on the design of a next-generation multi-role V/STOL fighter intended to follow the
Yak-41 M. In its general layout it had a marked resemblance to the Lockheed Martin
F-22 Raptor (albeit the latter was designed to a somewhat later time-scale
and had no VTOL capability).

Not seeing any evidence this is going to be developed, in fact they are promoting the MiG-35 as the future... maybe they just try to hide the development of a new fighter in order not to harm the MiG-35's export potential? If MiG had a project like LMFS at hands the -35 would be a lesser concern I guess...

Neither do I (if you mean canard) but I remember Butowski painted PAK FA very similar to Su-57 before it was fielded too MiG-35 is for expert and testing LMFS tech to me

BTW look at TSAGI makr on letf lower conrer...



Unlike Yefim's book I have mixed feelings about sources form Parlay.

Is there any hint as to how the Yak proposal is expected to take off or land vertically? Do you happen to know what is the propulsion concept, apart from the NK-32 as main engine?

Sources is scarce so far Paralay (Yak and LMFS)
http://paralay.world/index.html

LMFS looks like VSTOL variant.



other engines considered: AL-41F

@Gunship:

Yeah, manufacturers engage in studies to evaluate possible solutions even if they are not interested in actually building them, they need knowledge. Until now I see no clear signs that the STOVL and LMFS will be the same (rather hints at Yakovlev as designer) but who knows.

The one from TsAGI has not even intakes, what kind of aircraft is that? Rocket engine propelled?

What would be surprising is if the Yak design you showed in a previous post (with canard and LO design) was from 1983-84, probably isn't, right?

LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

Yeah, manufacturers engage in studies to evaluate possible solutions even if they are not interested in actually building them, they need knowledge. Until now I see no clear signs that the STOVL and LMFS will be the same (rather hints at Yakovlev as designer) but who knows.

Agreed. I only speculated that perhaps MiG sill do this as Yak is only focusing on Yak-130, MiG has not much to do... and progress with MiG-35 is very slow.

The one from TsAGI has not even intakes, what kind of aircraft is that? Rocket engine propelled?

research model of light maneuverable plane in subsonic tunnel (that's what subtitle says

What would be surprising is if the Yak design you showed in a previous post (with canard and LO design) was from 1983-84, probably isn't, right?

Im not sure this was response to LMFS (stol variant) . I guess I was wrong this wasnt same as Izdelye 201/ Yak-43 but untill I'll find any other sources I will stop here

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned...  

Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or  6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

This is not right. Is false.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p75-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#232713

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?

Of course they made calculations... but it was all theory and guesswork because they didn't have an actually useful VSTOL aircraft to base their calculations upon.

It wasn't until they were actually test landing Yak-41s on actual carriers that they realised the problems it would have taking off or landing vertically in combat...

They tried smaller carriers in the form of the Kiev class, and it was rejected mainly because of the performance of the Yak-38M aircraft... expensive... low performance, fragile, high loss rate of aircraft. Its excellent ejection system meant it was not as lethal as some other aircraft but its crash rate was huge.

VSTOL aircraft have enormous IR signatures and are very vulnerable to IR guided weapons... the old Strela was not a brilliant weapon against jet aircraft, but the Harrier would have been an exception...

Surely, Tu-160M2 is like nazi project ot you?

A long range strategic bomber is vastly more value to Russia than an F-35...

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

Believe it when proven...

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.

2 tons of engine in the back of this new VSTOL fighter has to be balanced by an equivalent level of power in the front of the aircraft that will be dead weight for the entire flight.

And what sort of special super material will those airfields in Russia need to be made from to survive that sort of take off thrust?

soon = after 2023

So at least a decade before the carrier it will operate from is ready... all good.

Yak-41 was cancelled by Jelzin.

It would have just sucked funds away from upgrades on the Su-33...

The only reason they got the MiG-29KR is because production was set up and paid for by the Indian order for same aircraft...

Its gonna be funny if new VSTOL fighter will be MiG instead of Yak

Not sure how it would make any difference?
VSTOL is a dead end in fighter aircraft...

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned... (but I doubt Chinese will be buying that hulk this time)

Unless they have cancelled funding for EMALs development I would say this would not effect carrier design at all.

They have already stated they want carriers slightly bigger than the K and nuclear powered... so 80-90K ton is probably what they are going to get... whether they have VSTOL aircraft or Su-57 models will likely depend on which works out better... but considering what has happened so far... the Su-33 was chosen because of its better performance... the MiG-29KR were considered too expensive, less capable... and multirole at a time when they just wanted an air defence fighter.

If they don't change... I suspect they will either introduce both aircraft or they will go for the larger more capable fighter that will be able to take off from an 80-90K ton carrier with the ski jump whether the EMALS is working or not...

They might develop a light 5th gen fighter with VSTOL capabilities... and a variant with non of the V capabilities would probably be very useful and capable....

I rather suspect two smaller engines than one really big one... That is still official policy for safety and having two engines where both have to operate for safety breaks the two engine rule too.

[Is there any hint as to how the Yak proposal is expected to take off or land vertically? Do you happen to know what is the propulsion concept, apart from the NK-32 as main engine?

Another aspect of course is that the NK-32 is an engine for a bomber... not a fighter... look at the F-111 and F-14A... same engine was great on the F-111 but not so good on the F-14... it wasn't until the engines were replaced in the F-14D model that it started to look impressive.

Also on anything except a tiny little 20K ton carrier most aircraft will land via cables so vertical landing makes little sense... it would be safer and easier and quicker to land using arrester cables.

Just as it would be more useful to use a rolling take off using the ski jump for VSTOL jets to maximise the payload and performance...

Source: no orders and order to build VSTOL fighter instead of Su-57?

The word instead is there as your creation. I am sure Sukhoi would love to sell some naval Su-57s...

By analogy to F-22 looks like large stealth fighters are not really suitable for small decks of ships.

The Russian Navy has already said it wants ships slightly bigger than Kuznetsov...

For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or 6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

Yet not so long ago they spend over a billion Euros and got ZERO Mistrals... imagine that...

MiG has not much to do... and progress with MiG-35 is very slow.

MiG-41 and MiG-35 is rather more than Yak-130.

This is not right. Is false.

Hahahahaha... in 2030 it is going to be 500 US dollars to a rouble...

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Hey even if it's a complete failure on every single parameter (which it won't be) it will be money well spent because it will keep them from wasting time and money on nonsense like supercarriers and will redirect remaining cash into building ships that Navy actually needs instead of some white elephants that will go down the way of Riga AKA Liaoning once project is abandoned...  

Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or  6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

16 billion??? Damn, that thing would make Ford-class look dirt cheap....

BS,
Gerald R. Ford class:
Cost:
Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)
Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

GarryB wrote:

VSTOL aircraft have enormous IR signatures and are very vulnerable to IR guided weapons... the old Strela was not a brilliant weapon against jet aircraft, but the Harrier would have been an exception...

but you know Yak-43 was to be stealthy? BTW you seem to live in Harrier times didn notice 50 years in progress in tech. You have right to think VSTL sucks but truth is that Russian admiralty now decided to go for thsi for a reason.

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

Believe it when proven...

You dotn have to - Russian admirals did

soon = after 2023

So at least a decade before the carrier it will operate from is ready... all good.

Carrier will start around thsi time, this was discussed many times over and over first new fighter then new AC

Its gonna be funny if new VSTOL fighter will be MiG instead of Yak

Not sure how it would make any difference?
VSTOL is a dead end in fighter aircraft...

US and Russian military disagree and invest in this billions.

They have already stated they want carriers slightly bigger than the K and nuclear powered... so 80-90K ton is probably what they are going to get... whether they have VSTOL aircraft or Su-57 models will likely depend on which works out better... but considering what has happened so far... the Su-33 was chosen because of its better performance... the MiG-29KR were considered too expensive, less capable... and multirole at a time when they just wanted an air defence fighter.

If they don't change... I suspect they will either introduce both aircraft or they will go for the larger more capable fighter that will be able to take off from an 80-90K ton carrier with the ski jump whether the EMALS is working or not...

+

They might develop a light 5th gen fighter with VSTOL capabilities... and a variant with non of the V capabilities would probably be very useful and capable....

you see , no you are in mid phase wrt VSTOL
denial aggression bargaining depression acceptance



They will get 40-60 ktons universal carrier (LHA if you prefer) for VSTOL.

I rather suspect two smaller engines than one really big one... That is still official policy for safety and having two engines where both have to operate for safety breaks the two engine rule too.

Might be right well see, what will be with vertical fans - tho 2 + vertical engines?

Another aspect of course is that the NK-32 is an engine for a bomber... not a fighter... look at the F-111 and F-14A... same engine was great on the F-111 but not so good on the F-14... it wasn't until the engines were replaced in the F-14D model that it started to look impressive.

NK-32 is similar in size/thurst and wight to F-35B engine

Also on anything except a tiny little 20K ton carrier most aircraft will land via cables so vertical landing makes little sense... it would be safer and easier and quicker to land using arrester cables.
Just as it would be more useful to use a rolling take off using the ski jump for VSTOL jets to maximise the payload and performance...

True yet you can use vSTOL on 20k carriers if you need too.

Source: no orders and order to build VSTOL fighter instead of Su-57?

The word instead is there as your creation. I am sure Sukhoi would love to sell some naval Su-57s...

Sukhoi might want but Putin decided otherwise Anyway same corporation is gonna make VSTOL

Yet not so long ago they spend over a billion Euros and got ZERO Mistrals... imagine that...

Mistral wa smostly political project as S-400 and Turkey. With France deal failed unlike wit Turkey.

This is not right. Is false.

Hahahahaha... in 2030 it is going to be 500 US dollars to a rouble...  

iIt might or in 2030 USD might not exist anymore or itmight be 30 rubles USD.

AlfaT8 wrote:

16 billion??? Damn, that thing would make Ford-class look dirt cheap....

BS,
Gerald R. Ford class:
Cost:
Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)
Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier[/quote]

With RnD first ship is 14blns, if you add cost of upgrading and building yards in case of Russia...

and I ve never heard it was ordered ether

No orders for EMALS or VSTOL aircraft... because they are in development.

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

It was cancelled because there were fundamental problems in the design... the hot front lift engines were a critical problem... the Yak-41 was no super plane but the two lift jets just behind the pilot would be powerful enough to operate an Su-25... they are only slightly less powerful...

And they are blowing hot air directly under the front of the aircraft... that is OK in mid flight, but when landing if that hot air goes into the air intake then you get a main engine stall... and that is bad because in that situation that is all that is holding the aircraft in the air....

are you saying Russians didn't calculate/brainstorm over and over cost/benefits before taking decision?

I am sure there were plenty of people who want to build a VSTOL fighter, but how can their calculations possibly be accurate without an actual test aircraft to prove the numbers are right?

I am sure they probably did all the calculations and brainstorming over the Yak-41, but tests showed there were serious fundamental problems, for which there were no easy answers.

In comparison the engine on the Harrier used cold gas from near the front of the single engine for lift, while the F-35 has a fan driven by the main engine... do you think they came up with that themselves... because they were going for separate jet engines like the Yak-41 until they talked to Yak...

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?

More complicated and expensive and fragile than a normal aircraft... what is not to love...

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

Unit cost for the MiG-29K according to wiki is $16 million... you could buy enough for all four carriers and still have change compared to what it would cost for one carriers worth of F-35s.

You do Smile 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.

But you only pay for the long runway once... every time one of those crappy VSTOL F-35B wannabes crashes that will be 100 million plus each.

By having a real runway your planes can take off with more fuel and ordinance and cover more area...

NK-32
thrust 137 kN with afterburner 245 kN


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

Yes... all that extra fuel burned in the bigger engine... and of course using full AB for landing and take off means even more fuel and more damage to the runway...

wrong, because they are exclusive

Invasions require heavy ordinance loads from heavy aircraft in large numbers... an air defence carrier only needs a much smaller carrier.

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

Looks like that Yugoslavian super plane Novi Avion... they never make it for real and over time it just gets better and better.... like the Canadian Arrow or the UK Bluestreak missile.

but you know Yak-43 was to be stealthy?

Of course... I forgot stealthy planes can't get shot down...

BTW you seem to live in Harrier times didn notice 50 years in progress in tech. You have right to think VSTL sucks but truth is that Russian admiralty now decided to go for thsi for a reason.

I saw all the promises... can take off from anywhere... doesn't need runways... blah blah blah.

They were effective in the Falklands war because they had a good primary missile that was better than the missile on enemy planes and the enemy planes were pretty mediocre.

Reality is they can't operate anywhere and conventional planes can take off and land from strips of motor way too... for all the design compromises to allow them to take off from the deck of a carrier they would have been rather better off with conventional aircraft like MiG-29s and Su-27s.

The cost for bigger carriers pays off because bigger carriers are better.

So the F-35B has similar practical performance as a MiG-29K... $122 million dollars per aircraft vs $16 million... I don't see your point.

Carrier will start around thsi time, this was discussed many times over and over first new fighter then new AC

In practical terms it would not matter if they started laying down a carrier right now... they wont need carrier aircraft for it until well after the engines are ready...

US and Russian military disagree and invest in this billions.

No evidence of Russia investing billions...

you see , no you are in mid phase wrt VSTOL

Nope.

VSTOL is pointless and expensive. They never actually take off vertically except at airshows, and they will certainly never land vertically either... it takes longer and burns too much fuel and is risky.

They will get 40-60 ktons universal carrier (LHA if you prefer) for VSTOL.

They have already said they want something slightly bigger than K so bigger than 60k tons.

Might be right well see, what will be with vertical fans - tho 2 + vertical engines?

How about two engines vertically stacked... one near the front and one near the back...

NK-32 is similar in size/thurst and wight to F-35B engine

It does, but it was designed as an engine for a bomber.... long range cruise.... high speed dashes... no hard manouvering or rapid throttle changes...

How about two engines from a Bear bomber... one facing forward and one facing back both able to pivot upwards for vertical takeoff and landing....

True yet you can use vSTOL on 20k carriers if you need too.

WTF would be the point? If you are so keen to save money don't make any carriers at all.... and all the money spent on BUK and TOR and S-300V... why bother with an air force? You could slash the budget by billions every year just having a surface navy and a surface army with no planes at all. Vann would love it... this year no planes flew and no planes crashed... it would still be Putins fault though...

Sukhoi might want but Putin decided otherwise Anyway same corporation is gonna make VSTOL

Yeah, like Yak built some Yak-41s... you can see them in museums and old books about planes of the future...

BS,
Gerald R. Ford class:
Cost:
Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)
Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

With RnD first ship is 14blns, if you add cost of upgrading and building yards in case of Russia...[/quote]

Compare apples with apples... the 16 billion for the Russian carrier includes programme costs, which means the equivalent costs for the Ford would be 13 billion plus 37 billion... so 50 billion.

Now you can bitch and say but they can afford to waste money... they are declaring economic war with everyone... not they can't afford it.

GarryB wrote:

and I ve never heard it was ordered ether

No orders for EMALS or VSTOL aircraft... because they are in development.

where was nfo about firm order or programme approval for EMALS?

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

It was cancelled because there were fundamental problems in the design...

[/quote]


not Yak 41M aka 141. The was proposed Yak141M and then Yak-43

https://www.abebooks.com/Pavlov-A.S-Dlinnaya-ruka-admirala-Gorshkova/22831631121/bd

Of the planned Yak-41 M series, 4 units of the machine were built, called the Yak-141, two of them were flying. December 29, 1989 began the test in the "hovering" mode, in July of the next year they tried a short takeoff and landing. In September 1991 the plane landed on the deck of TAKR "Admiral Gorshkov" (formerly "Baku"). During the year of the tests (with the crash of one aircraft), there were worked out lifts and landings both from the deck and from the ground airfields. The main take-off mode was a short (60-120 m) takeoff. At the same time, the payload increased by 2 tons, the radius of combat use of the aircraft increased by 1.5-2 times, the time of the barrage in the zone of possible combat operations was more than three times. Moreover, when the take-off, the surface temperature of the deck does not heat above 80 degrees.

The take-off and landing of helicopters were allowed at wind speeds of up to 18 m / s and a pitching amplitude of 8 degrees, for planes with stiffer-15 m / s and 6 degrees, pitching in both cases should not exceed 3 degrees.

With vertical take-off, the time for a set of horizontal speeds of 550 km / h, when an "airplane" flight begins, is up to 25 seconds, and with a shortened, with a detachment speed of up to 120 km / h, no more than 18 seconds. In addition to vertical or short take-off, lifting engines provide Yak-141 and reduced (up to 200 m) mileage when landing: when approaching the ship, nozzles of lift engines rotated 5 degrees against the direction of flight begin to work as aerodynamic brakes. For this reason there are no brake shields on the plane. The installation of the brake hook for the landing was worked on.

Thus, the devices of purely vertical takeoff and landing became airplanes of short take-off and landing, became more speedy and maneuverable, turning into a serious weapon. All this did not escape the attentive look of foreign experts and in 1994 the US Congress decided to give the task to firms to develop a similar aircraft to replace the "Harriers".

are you saying Russians didn't calculate/brainstorm over and over  cost/benefits before taking decision?

I am sure there were plenty of people who want to build a VSTOL fighter, but how can their calculations possibly be accurate without an actual test aircraft to prove the numbers are right?I am sure they probably did all the calculations and brainstorming over the Yak-41, but tests showed there were serious fundamental problems, for which there were no easy answers.


[/quote]

meh SWOT doents exist in Russia. There were no aerospace experts asked too. not sure why you say alwasy Yak-41 nto Yak-38 or 36. OR 141 or 141M or 43.

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?

More complicated and expensive and fragile than a normal aircraft... what is not to love...  
[/quote]

saving trillions of rubles on-ships, EMALS, maintenance and infrastructure? of course!

NK-32
thrust  137 kN   with afterburner  245 kN

Yes... all that extra fuel burned in the bigger engine... and of course using full AB for landing and take off means even more fuel and more damage to the runway...

no look at text i quoted and check Yak-43stuff

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

Looks like that Yugoslavian super plane Novi Avion... they never make it for real and over time it just gets better and better.... like the Canadian Arrow or the UK Bluestreak missile.

USSR ceased to exist this time but perhaps you didnt notice yet?

The cost for bigger carriers pays off because bigger carriers are better.

For invading foreign counties, Midway battles true! but you need to see what tasks is to be fulfilled by such ship. apparently for Russians other tasks are different.

So the F-35B has similar practical performance as a MiG-29K... $122 million dollars per aircraft vs $16 million... I don't see your point.

bwahahahha this is a good one !!! MiG-23 is ~4mlsn USD is would be even cheaper and faster! 2800km/h vs 2400km/h!

Carrier will start around thsi time, this was discussed many times over and over first new fighter then new AC

In practical terms it would not matter if they started laying down a carrier right now... they wont need carrier aircraft for it until well after the engines are ready...
[quote]

US and Russian military disagree and invest in this billions.

No evidence of Russia investing billions...

US did, Russian made decision to do this. If you stop ingoring facts facts about decision you'll get it!

They will get 40-60 ktons universal carrier (LHA if you prefer) for VSTOL.

They have already said they want something slightly bigger than K so bigger than 60k tons.

no fleet said what they expect not what they get. At first they expected 100kt -> then min 70ktons -> next as a reality something max 60sh will get (videcQE2) although I bet on LHA Americasized ship.

NK-32 is similar in size/thurst and wight to F-35B engine

It does, but it was designed as an engine for a bomber.... long range cruise.... high speed dashes... no hard manouvering or rapid throttle changes...

it was already planned for Yak-43 concept though by aerospace experts unlike us

True yet you can use vSTOL on 20k carriers if you need too.

WTF would be the point? If you are so keen to save money don't make any carriers at all....

true not for Midway but for police wars or even Syrian conflict fair enough.

Compare apples with apples... the 16 billion for the Russian carrier includes programme costs, which means the equivalent costs for the Ford would be 13 billion plus 37 billion... so 50 billion.

no 37blns is cost of 3 CVs + R&D thus 13blns per unit

Now you can bitch and say but they can afford to waste money... they are declaring economic war with everyone... not they can't afford it.

They can they cannot not a business for RuNavy . Ru navy has chosen other way.

GarryB wrote:

BS,
Gerald R. Ford class:
Cost:
Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)
Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

With RnD first ship is 14blns, if you add cost of upgrading and building yards in case of Russia...

Compare apples with apples... the 16 billion for the Russian carrier includes programme costs, which means the equivalent costs for the Ford would be 13 billion plus 37 billion... so 50 billion.

Now you can bitch and say but they can afford to waste money... they are declaring economic war with everyone... not they can't afford it.

Come one Garry, lets be a bit optimistic, the Program cost must have included the first unit price too.

where was nfo about firm order or programme approval for EMALS?

On the shelf next to the firm order and programme approval for their new Death Star and VSTOL fighter aircraft and indeed CVNs.

not Yak 41M aka 141. The was proposed Yak141M and then Yak-43

It was a Yak-41M that crashed on the deck of a carrier, and the Yak-43 was a paper project, so yes, the Yak-41M was cancelled and the Yak-43 was not cancelled... because it never actually existed in any hard form except a drawing.

The main take-off mode was a short (60-120 m) takeoff. At the same time, the payload increased by 2 tons, the radius of combat use of the aircraft increased by 1.5-2 times, the time of the barrage in the zone of possible combat operations was more than three times. Moreover, when the take-off, the surface temperature of the deck does not heat above 80 degrees.

So with a rolling takeoff it can carry more payload and more fuel... we already knew that.. but with these numbers we can work out what sort of performance you would get from a 20K ton helicopter carrier with no rolling takeoff and no ski jump... and it is pathetic.

The Yak-41M had a payload of like 3 tons, so vertical takeoff means 1 ton payload and the flight range halved...

Like I said... bloody useless...

For a 5th gen fighter that will cost rather more than a MiG-33...

In addition to vertical or short take-off, lifting engines provide Yak-141 and reduced (up to 200 m) mileage when landing: when approaching the ship, nozzles of lift engines rotated 5 degrees against the direction of flight begin to work as aerodynamic brakes. For this reason there are no brake shields on the plane. The installation of the brake hook for the landing was worked on.

Except airbrakes would be much lighter and much cheaper than lift engines, and they can be used in a dogfight situation...

Thus, the devices of purely vertical takeoff and landing became airplanes of short take-off and landing, became more speedy and maneuverable, turning into a serious weapon.

Thus a shit aircraft that was bloody useless, became adequate... but still fragile and expensive and of limited use.

meh SWOT doents exist in Russia. There were no aerospace experts asked too. not sure why you say alwasy Yak-41 nto Yak-38 or 36. OR 141 or 141M or 43.

Yak-38s were proven to be next to useless... Yak-41Ms had a real radar and proper air to air weapons, but had lower all round performance than a MiG-33... lower speed, shorter range, less useful armament, smaller radar... and much more expensive aircraft with nothing in common with any other type... the MiG-33 was a navalised land based aircraft widely used.

saving trillions of rubles on-ships, EMALS, maintenance and infrastructure? of course!

Hahahaha... so not only do you get a shit aircraft that is pretty useless for anything, you also get a crap carrier that is bloody useless too...

They wont know whether the EMALS will be successful or not until after they know if they have a decent VSTOL aircraft or not... so the money on the EMALS wont be saved by selecting VSTOL fighters... EMALS would be even more critical if you want a dinky little piece of shit ship because EMALS is for AWACS... not for fixed wing fighters.

Buying two big carriers (70-80K tons max) will be cheaper than building 4 smaller carriers but needing to send two carriers everywhere you would normally just send one bigger carrier.

The infrastructure for four small carriers wont be less than for two big ones... the difference is that you will need to swap the smaller carriers more often because they wont have the endurance or capacity of the bigger vessels.

Smaller carriers means less defence (remember Russian carriers will have much more in the way of air defences and systems than western carriers... and a smaller carrier wont need less such defences so they will occupy a greater percentage of space in a smaller carrier...) ...it means less onboard fuel for aircraft operations, less ordinance for aircraft operations... and it will likely mean no or limited AWACS support.

It is like buying fake cameras to deter thieves, instead of forking out for real cameras... fine when there are no problems and a good deterrent... but when you actually do need them they are useless.

no look at text i quoted and check Yak-43stuff

Yeah, why not show me text about Yak-57 or Yak-67, or another plane that has never been built before.

USSR ceased to exist this time but perhaps you didnt notice yet?

Yup, but the fact that it ceased to exist doesn't make the plans for the Yak-43 viable.

For invading foreign counties, Midway battles true! but you need to see what tasks is to be fulfilled by such ship. apparently for Russians other tasks are different.

Ohh come on... are you saying Russia does not need Frigates or Destroyers or Cruisers because patrol boats are cheaper?

All they need is super supply ships to follow them around... hey... no... arsenal drone ships that follow Corvettes around... literally on a tether passing electricity and data to the smaller vessel on long voyages... coastal batteries can be used when the ship is close to land...

Cancel the big expensive Frigates... I have a harebrained scheme to save a few roubles... might end up killing a lot of sailors, but their standard of living will be better while they are alive...

bwahahahha this is a good one !!! MiG-23 is ~4mlsn USD is would be even cheaper and faster! 2800km/h vs 2400km/h!

But the MiG-23 is a single engined aircraft... a no no.

[quote]US did, Russian made decision to do this. If you stop ingoring facts facts about decision you'll get it!['/quote]

All Russia is doing is looking at developing VSTOL fighters... there is no commitment to serial production, nor decisions regarding carrier size.

VSTOL aircraft can actually be used on the Kuznetsov... that is actually what the ski jump was developed for... vectored thrust VSTOL aircraft... they benefit the most... but of course a naval fighter like Su-33 or MiG-33 or Su-57 navalised could also have thrust vector engines too...

although I bet on LHA Americasized ship.

Of course because a primary goal of the Russian Navy is to be as bloated and useless as the US Navy... they are heros...

The Russian Navy has separate requirements... they want a Mistral type landing ship... it will probably be nuke powered and rather better armed now, but still not likely more than 35K tons. They also want an air defence carrier to protect their ships beyond russian waters and some little helicopter carrier just wont cut it...

It would very much be like the British Navy in the late 1970s and early 80s... they just got rid of their fixed wing carrier the ark royal and replaced it with the Hermes helicopter carriers and were very very very lucky that their spat was in south america where centuries of US pressure limited them to fairly weak air power.

I mean Mirage IIIs and A-4 Skyhawks...

With the Fixed wing ark royal carrier they would have had Buccaneers for strike and Phantoms for fighters with full BVR capabilties, not to mention Gannet AEW aircraft so they could see what was coming and would have had less surprises...

it was already planned for Yak-43 concept though by aerospace experts unlike us

The F-111 was originally planned as a carrier based fighter aircraft but it was decided it was too heavy... the engines went in to what replaced it... the F-14, while the radar and missiles were adapted and improved and were also eventually put in the F-14, and the F-111 (note the F for fighter designation) became a strike and EW aircraft for the Air Force.

The F-14A suffered because of its poor engine... great for long range cruise flight, but not so good for turning combat.

true not for Midway but for police wars or even Syrian conflict fair enough.

If Russia wants to trade globally, it will need a global navy... and that means air power to support naval operations anywhere.

It does not mean invasion... it means being able to send ships and aircraft anywhere they need to... and that means you need carriers.

Countries don't become global powers and with all that money they make they build a powerful navy... it happens the other way around.

Right now in any dispute in Africa or the Americas or indeed the pacific or Asia, France and the UK and the US and a few other countries would have more say than Russia simply because Russia can't take anything to enforce their will that can operate safely... having a carrier changes that and makes all your ships and subs SAFER.

Don't think of it as an extra expense... for some capability to attack countries... think of it as improved reach in terms of weapons and sensors... it is more information in times of stress... how much is that worth?

It is extra layers and rings of defence and vision for a surface group... it is the difference between the Hermes and quite a few ships getting sunk because the British didn't see them coming, and everyone coming home alive without ship losses.

The Argentinian aircraft were not powerful heavy capable fighters.

Their pilots were incredibly brave and also skilled, but if they had anything decent in terms of aircraft... having MiG-23s with R-24 AAMs as well as the capacity to operate from rough strips on the islands would have meant the Brits would have been in serious trouble... even if they flew high and fast and just blew past those Harriers and launched R-24T missiles... those Harriers only had Sidewinders and would have had little chance against fighters flying at 10,000m at mach 2, while the IR signature of a Harrier is enormous and the engine nozzles on the side make them terribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles...

Once the Harriers are gone... the British would be left with missile defences... Sea Dart was in service in the Argentine Navy so they knew all about that... Seawolf would be a problem but just fly high and avoid it...

The Argentines were familiar with the Exocet but then the British had that in service too so they should have been more aware.

I remember at the time the Royal Navy said they had had trouble with the Exocet but it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any anti ship missiles as potent as that.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Note for those not aware the SS-N-22 Sunburn was just entering service... max height is 300m to find the target and 7m or less operational height for the rest of the 120km range at mach 2.

no 37blns is cost of 3 CVs + R&D thus 13blns per unit

Then I know it is bullshit... there is no way the second two will cost the same as the first one...

Come one Garry, lets be a bit optimistic, the Program cost must have included the first unit price too.

American accounting... who knows what it includes... all we know is that in the end it will actually cost about 4 times more than any promise made before production started...

And now Ladies and Gentlemen special goodies for GarryB. The article is pretty long I took liberty to quote some parts specially for VSTOL H8ers
Et voila:

Fighter vertical take-off. An airplane of the future or a well-forgotten past?

TASS - on the urgency of creating new vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, as well as on similar projects in the arsenal of the Soviet Union, and on unique technologies that left for the West
+++
According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

Undoubtedly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed - it is for this purpose that various technologies are used that make it possible to provide a short take-off or landing, or simply vertical take-off
Yuri Borisov,
Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

+++

According to him, "the terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, this is seven to ten years, if you go into the series." The existing Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB planes will gradually become obsolete, resulting in the development of new aircraft in about 10-15 years.

+++

And when we have a plane for vertical take-off and landing, it will be additional operational capabilities, not only at sea, but in limited areas of some local hostilities or in the organization of defense. Such a plane, in fact, more relates to defensive systems
Vladimir Popov
honored military pilot of the Russian Federation, Major-General
+++
In this case, he will not have very large radii of action in relation to conventional aircraft, the expert believes. "But they will be able to carry out operational-tactical tasks, in order to expeditiously maximize opportunities, that is, to prevent the enemy from attacking somewhere, to prevent this blow from accumulating and relocating troops," he said.

Another important point, Popov believes, is "without having a large airfield network, it is possible to use platforms such as helicopter radars for such an aircraft."
+++
In service with the Russian army, the Yak-141 stood until 2003.

+++

At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

Aviation experts and experts note the high urgency of creating new vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. This is important not only to enhance the prestige, but also the defense capability of Russia. At the same time, engineers and designers will be able to take full advantage of all the existing developments in this field and modern aircraft engineering

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5502973

Was thinking of posting that article but I found it way too weak Gunship, good ideas do not need so much whitewashing