Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

The only advantages a VTOL fighter would have over a Ka-52 would be speed and altitude and range.

So when Su-30 comes to bomb Russian units outside S-400 range, you send Ka-52 in the air. Right. Britain has 2 new CVNs, China soon 3, US 11, so Kuz is not enough. VTOL LHDs, spread around all the fleets will be ready for providing air cover for cruiser task groups. Kirovs and Slavas will be taken more seriously in the Pacific and Mediterranean.

ISIS doesn't have any air power and the vast majority of countries the Russians would try to land forces in wouldn't have one either

It may suffice to Syria to be a threat to ISIS, but Russia wants to remain no. 2 in the world after 2030. VTOL LHD in the Pacific will speed up peace treaty with Japan, make China take Russia more seriously and allow Russia to have bigger word in the future of Korea. After US CVN visited Vietnam for the first time after 1975 this year, what could be proper Russian answer...hmmm

Characteristics on pair with MiG-29k but longer range. And of course VSTOL. Mind that Yak-141 was supposed to be able to start STOL in 70m MTOW (MiG-195m+skijump), wiki says about experimental 6m STOL. Taking into account Vertical landing this makes ship requirements really modest.

If you equal payloads (5 tons less in the Yak) then the MiG-29 takes-off comfortably from the 95 m runs. Well, it may need to be seen if it could not better the STOL performance of the Yak

MiG-29k max payload is 4,5 ton Yak 4,2 ton. MiG-29k max range 2000km, Yak 2400km (Yefim jumping jet). MiG cannot start in 95m with full payload and fuel. For AA missiel witgh 05
% fuel and 4-6 AAMs perhaps yes. Then Yak could start vertically ;-)

GarryB wrote:From a Backfire the Kinzhals range is likely to be about 1,500km so it would be able to launch both at the same target group... and firing 10 missiles would be a more effective attack than just firing 4 missiles.

Range from Tu-22 is 3000 km, which means the range for launching from the MiG-31 includes the range of the carrier....

Not sure If I understand your point here?

GarryB wrote: it would make rather more sense if that fighter was a MiG-29KR or Su-33 and is properly armed and already in service.

OK  you know better then RuN but
(1) we talk about 2030s right? I can share with you in secret: Su-33 service life expired in 2015, they were artificially  extended till 2025.
(2) MiG-29k will be severely obsolete then
(3) neither MiG-29k nor Su-33 can really start with reasonable payload from anything shorter than Kuz

Having to take three helicopter carriers so one carrier can carry a Harrier like VSTOL fighter makes little sense when you have the Kuznetsov already that can deliver real fighters to deal with enemy airpower that might try to interfere with a landing and of course dozens of ships with Calibr that can deal with the airfields enemy aircraft can operate from...

I dotn think he is saying about taking a lot LHDs to be carriers but to have ability to have mission defined usage of ship: helo carrier, transport, light carrier. There are little need to massive callibers usage for low tech opponents. Air launched Hermes can have up to 230km range...and is by order of magnitude cheaper then Kalibr.

BTW Kuz takes 24-28 fighters max. Same amount of VSTOL can be allocated on 30k light carrier.  PEr sortie 2-3 end up in ocean because of  STOBAR mechanism failure.

Without them, what will happen after the landing? The range of S-400 will stop a half way to Khartoum. It would be complicated for the Russians to occupy domestic damaged airport and send Su-35 there, considering supply&repair lines dificulties. So LHD-borne VTOLs seem quite a good choice for the job.

By the time VTOLs become available the Kuznetsov will likely be back in service... why not use that?

Wow and 1 Kuz will be navigating around the world leaving arctic w/o support?  BTW after 2025 Su-33 are out. There MiG-29k is 22 now. Lines closed Not much choice a new fighter is needed.

ISIS doesn't have any air power and the vast majority of countries the Russians would try to land forces in wouldn't have one either, but if they did then why are you talking about using extra helicopter carriers with VSTOL aircraft that don't exist when they have the Kuznetsov with MiG-29KR and Su-33s that do exist?

Then there is no need to build any new fighter nor carriers! One aging Kuz is enough for all needs and forever? I dont think RuN subscribes to your opinion.

(1)A pure helicopter carrier does not need heat resistant tiles for helos to operate... if you want to operate VTOL aircraft you will need to completely redesign it to allow for these aircraft to operate from them...

(2) But I still don't see the benefit... a helicopter carrier with fighters on it means it is no longer an effective helicopter carrier... and is perhaps 1/12th or 1/20th of a real fixed wing carrier... if you want to ad hoc make a half arsed carriers there are a lot of other vessel types that are much cheaper and can be used for the job.

(1) So you are gonna redesign them and?  I've never ever heard that Russian officials said anything abut "pure helo carriers"  , you seem to be the first one      
(2) You dont see benefit because you dot seem to use data to calculate effectiveness but emotions only. Navy planners evaluate tasks, challenges and how to deal with them within budget. not surprisingly Royal Navy, Spanish Navy or  Italian one chose medium/light universal carriers. With VSTOL.  French Navy uses Rafale but carrier is still 40ktons/30fighters max  and can transport 800 marines...

So actually every carrier besides  US monsters is a half arsed in your scale. Congratulations admiral realistic assessment o problem and defining winning strategy      

Did you mean GZUR? (GiperZvukovaya Upravlyaemaya Raketa) - hypersonic guided missile. For me unlikely to carry 4 Kinzhals + 6 GZURs. The ide of GZUR is to have longer loitering time/ and/or range.

From a Backfire the Kinzhals range is likely to be about 1,500km so it would be able to launch both at the same target group... and firing 10 missiles would be a more effective attack than just firing 4 missiles.

This frankly spekaing makes no sense. Why to develop 3 different types of missiles in 1 class for 1 platform - GZUR, Kinzhal and Kh-32? My bet it to be able to put all into bomb bay and loiter over area to ensure CVN gets the message. Extra heavy missiles under wing make bomber heavier, shorter range and worse ability to escape if needed.

Due to its  small weight/size  GZUR can used by navy and deck aviation

in 2030s there will be no MiG-29k and no Su-33s anymore. BTW why do you think that MiG-19 style fighter bombers will be better than Harrier ones?

They have had Su-33s on the ship since it entered service and now they are getting MiG-29KRs that are brand new and will likely remain operational on the K for at least two decades... but I agree, without serious spending they wont still have Su-33s operational.

Of course when they build their first new CVN it will likely come with a budget to populate its decks with new aircraft and they will likely tag on the back of that order another order for more aircraft to fill the hangar of the Kuznetsov too... it might even include a couple of VSTOL aircraft too.... who knows.

Su-33 has extra extended service life till 2025. MiG-29k is technically young -2013-2016 but  there are only 22 of them: 19 MiG-29k + 3 MiG-29KUB. 2 already crashed. So no even for Kuz is not enough.  The idea of MoD was: first VSTOL then we see which carrier.

Differently designed then Yak-41 family. Looking similar to future Korean fighter KFX ;-)

Not really that different from the Yak-41... take the canards and shift the wing forward and put the canards on the back like tail surfaces and you pretty much have a Yak-41...

Same you can say about  Su-30 SM. Just add one more engine and et voila      

Characteristics on pair with MiG-29k but longer range. And of course VSTOL.  Mind that Yak-141 was supposed to be able to start  STOL in 70m MTOW (MiG-195m+skijump), wiki says about experimental 6m STOL. Taking into account Vertical landing this makes ship requirements really modest.

Numbers very good... but what happens when they get something into service and actually have to deliver on those promises...

Oh I know its hard: MiG-29k for example. Developed since 1986.  After 25 years (a quarter of century)  of development,improvements contracted!!! yet still:  8,3% of all build for noncombat  losses in first 3 years!  No wonder RuN preferred VSTOL.

verkhoturye51 wrote: VTOL LHDs, spread around all the fleets will be ready for providing air cover for cruiser task groups. Kirovs and Slavas will be taken more seriously in the Pacific and Mediterranean.

agreed. IMHO 40kt misplacement makes fairly good candidate for an universal carrier. Can go with smaller ship like 25-30ktons , still 18 VSTOL fighters is better then no cover and promises of "real support".

GunshipDemocracy wrote:(1) Vertical lift engines

Well, they are additional to the intake on the front and would have no apparent use at the back, since the nozzle looks downwards and not upwards.  

MiG-29k max payload is 4,5 ton Yak 4,2 ton. MiG-29k max range 2000km, Yak 2400km (Yefim jumping jet).  MiG cannot start in 95m with full payload and fuel. For AA missiel witgh 05
% fuel and 4-6 AAMs perhaps yes. Then Yak could start vertically ;-)

Oh you continue making up numbers and dodging the fundamental issue, namely that MTOW of both are not comparable and so the comparison of STO performance baseless.
Payload of Yak was 2.6 tons, that of MiG-29K is 4.5 according to Rosoboronexport, 5.5 in wiki. In any case at least two tons more. Empty weight of Yak is 11.650 kg, 11 tons for MiG-29K, while MTOW of the later is 22400 kg and 19500 for the Yak. So MTOW in one case and the other do necessarily imply different amounts of fuel and ordnance.

Please submit range of Yak with a given load and VTO so we can compare with the data we have for the F-35B. Maybe the Yak was better but if data are missing I have to stick to that from most similar (in fact way more advanced) STOVL example.

Not sure If  I understand your point here?      

I mean that the stated ranges for Kinzhal launched from both MiG-31 (2000 km) and Tu-22 (3000 km) are probably including range of the carrier and not only of the missile.

LMFS wrote:.....
I mean that the stated ranges for Kinzhal launched from both MiG-31 (2000 km) and Tu-22 (3000 km) are probably including range of the carrier and not only of the missile.

If true than it means that those missiles are completely useless

PapaDragon wrote:

LMFS wrote:.....
I mean that the stated ranges for Kinzhal launched from both MiG-31 (2000 km) and Tu-22 (3000 km) are probably including range of the carrier and not only of the missile.

If true than it means that those missiles are completely useless

Why? A MiG-31 dashing from an air base in South Russia and launching Kinzhal could strike most of ME in a matter of minutes...

PapaDragon wrote:

LMFS wrote:.....
I mean that the stated ranges for Kinzhal launched from both MiG-31 (2000 km) and Tu-22 (3000 km) are probably including range of the carrier and not only of the missile.

If true than it means that those missiles are completely useless

Can't be true. Iskander is ground lunch, so it burns more fuel during initial minutes to fight gravity, has a range of 500km and because it is limitef by the treaty on BM range. It could easily be bigger. Kinzhal has the same size, newer engine/fuel and i ai launch from 10km altitude at ~ mach 1 so it spends less fuel for acceleration and going high so 200km is totally possible if it is not more.

LMFS wrote:

Not sure If  I understand your point here?      

I mean that the stated ranges for Kinzhal launched from both MiG-31 (2000 km) and Tu-22 (3000 km) are probably including range of the carrier and not only of the missile.

Very strange reasoning to me.  

2000km Kinzhal range from MiG means: MiG is "tossing"  Kinzahl from high altitude by high speed.  
Since Tu service ceiling and speed is ~50% of MiGs one I'd suspect Kinzhal range is much shorter. I have never heard anybody claiming 3000km from Tu       . Can you provide your source please?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:(1) Vertical lift engines

Well, they are additional to the intake on the front and would have no apparent use at the back, since the nozzle looks downwards and not upwards.  

Not sure what you wanted to say. That vertical lift nozzle is to point upwards?!

MiG-29k max payload is 4,5 ton Yak 4,2 ton. MiG-29k max range 2000km, Yak 2400km (Yefim jumping jet).  MiG cannot start in 95m with full payload and fuel. For AA missiel witgh 05% fuel and 4-6 AAMs perhaps yes. Then Yak could start vertically ;-)

Oh you continue making up numbers and dodging the fundamental issue, namely that MTOW of both are not comparable and so the comparison of STO performance baseless.
Payload of Yak was 2.6 tons, that of MiG-29K is 4.5 according to Rosoboronexport, 5.5 in wiki. In any case at least two tons more. Empty weight of Yak is 11.650 kg, 11 tons for MiG-29K, while MTOW of the later is 22400 kg and 19500 for the Yak. So MTOW in one case and the other do necessarily imply different amounts of fuel and ordnance.

Please submit range of Yak with a given load and VTO so we can compare with the data we have for the F-35B. Maybe the Yak was better but if data are missing I have to stick to that from most similar (in fact way more advanced) STOVL example.

(1) we were  talking about last Yak concept comparison with MiG-29k dot mix with Yak-141 to boost "validity" of your  arguments. Yak-11 gad 150kN vs 2x90kN on MiG.

(2) Yak we were talking about wasnt 141 and had payload 4,2 tons not 2,6.

(3) You dont understand how to read data I can explain you: Rosoboronexport is key here. Indian MiGs have 5,5 tons (izd 9-41) - export. Russian ones have 4,5 tons ( изделия 9-31). Check Russian wiki or any other publications.

(4) MiG-29k  has poor track of non combat loses: 1 lost in Syria, 2 lost in India and 1 not able to fly on Kuz  And all that  after almost 25years of continuous development. First start in 1988 delivery from 2013 (for RuN)      [/quote]

Isos wrote:Can't be true. Iskander is ground lunch, so it burns more fuel during initial minutes to fight gravity, has a range of 500km and because it is limitef by the treaty on BM range. It could easily be bigger. Kinzhal has the same size, newer engine/fuel and i ai launch from 10km altitude at ~ mach 1 so it spends less fuel for acceleration and going high so 200km is totally possible if it is not more.

Don't know, it's the only way I can make sense of statements that range for Kinzhal launched from MiG-31 is lower than from Tu-22. If only missile range was considered it should be the other way around. Source:

http://tass.com/defense/1013794

Supersonic flight radius of MiG-31 is 700 km, so that would make 1300 km for Kinzhal launched from one of those. As for the Tu-22, no clear data found, but radius on normal load is 2400 km which would be compatible with launch after dash from roughly 2000 km and 1000 km range for the missile.

Gunship wrote:I have never heard anybody claiming 3000km from Tu  dunno  dunno  dunno . Can you provide your source please?

See above

(1) we were  talking about last Yak concept comparison with MiG-29k dot mix with Yak-141 to boost "validity" of your  arguments. Yak-11 gad 150kN vs 2x90kN on MiG.

Was not aware there was any flying Yak after the 141

(2) Yak we were talking about wasnt 141 and had payload 4,2 tons not 2,6.

What is the name of the plane? Was that the 41 or the 43? If you had sources it would be great

(3) You dont understand how to read data I can explain you: Rosoboronexport is key here. Indian MiGs have 5,5 tons (izd 9-41) - export. Russian ones have 4,5 tons ( изделия 9-31). Check Russian wiki or any other publications.

Better don't teach me your way of understanding data, I still want to be able to make a life on a technical field  
In fact I took the worst value in the comparison I made, the one from Rosoboronexport (4.5 tons) that you apparently a) did not check up b) confused with the wiki value. And it was still 70% above payload of the Yak...

(4) MiG-29k  has poor track of non combat loses: 1 lost in Syria, 2 lost in India and 1 not able to fly on Kuz  And all that  after almost 25years of continuous development. First start in 1988 delivery from 2013 (for RuN)  affraid  affraid  affraid

That is a clear case of the pan calling the kettle black isn't it??    

LMFS wrote:
Supersonic flight radius of MiG-31 is 700 km, so that would make 1300 km for Kinzhal launched from one of those. As for the Tu-22, no clear data found, but radius on normal load is 2400 km which would be compatible with launch after dash from roughly 2000 km and 1000 km range for the missile.

Wiki:
Tu-22M with payload 12 tons  at supersonic speeds: 1500–1850 km


MiG-31  at an altitude of 18000 m, with M = 2.35: 720 km (2,35 is supercruise speed for  MiG)


Now add 1,300 km for Kiznhal - 2000km MiG,  2800-3150km Tu. In such case it seems that  MiGs speed nor ceiling is not that much of an advantage. Unless this is not dezinfo injection.

(1) we were  talking about last Yak concept comparison with MiG-29k dot mix with Yak-141 to boost "validity" of your  arguments. Yak-11 gad 150kN vs 2x90kN on MiG.

Was not aware there was any flying Yak after the 141

Then please focus next time. I was mentioning about last concept/proposal fo  Yak r VSTOL in 90s. Yak never had 25 years time  and billions invested as MiG-29k.

(2) Yak we were talking about wasnt 141 and had payload 4,2 tons not 2,6.

What is the name of the plane? Was that the 41 or the 43? If you had sources it would be great

(1) None of above. Name dunno. Besides Pictures of model I've posted already in this thread.
(2) source: Gordon Yefim: Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 and Yak-41, Soviet "Jump Jets", page 122 The Next-generation Aircraft (VTOL)
(3) payload was 4,200 kg

(3) You dont understand how to read data I can explain you: Rosoboronexport is key here. Indian MiGs have 5,5 tons (izd 9-41) - export. Russian ones have 4,5 tons ( изделия 9-31). Check Russian wiki or any other publications.

Better don't teach me your way of understanding data, I still want to be able to make a life on a technical field  
In fact I took the worst value in the comparison I made, the one from Rosoboronexport (4.5 tons) that you apparently a) did not check up b) confused with the wiki value. And it was still 70% above payload of the Yak...

Wow, so you try to make living from technical field and claim 4,200 is 70% 4,500 ?! what about becoming a florist?      

(4) MiG-29k  has poor track of non combat loses: 1 lost in Syria, 2 lost in India and 1 not able to fly on Kuz  And all that  after almost 25years of continuous development. First start in 1988 delivery from 2013 (for RuN)  affraid  affraid  affraid

That is a clear case of the pan calling the kettle black isn't it??    

Not really, I am only bringing the real life data to everlasting bliss of "ski-bar && real" fighters which can do all and dont need replacement ever.

wiki (you can verify https://cag.gov.in)
"In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours"

Now tell me how Yak is guilty of this?

it's called VSTOL fighter?  or helicopter?

BTW mind to send link to this presentation? thx

I got pics from http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/10/es-esta-la-propuesta-de-kamov-de.html who seems to have gotten them from Balancer Ka-52 thread.

I posted initially & more pics in High Speed Helicopter thread https://www.russiadefence.net/t6267p50-promising-high-speed-helicopter-psv#238608 because its assumed to be a Kamov concept for the High Speed Helicopter project.

I posted here because I don't believe it makes sense for Russia to spend huge money/engineering effort to develop a new gen VSTOL fighter that would only be built in small numbers & I suspect the announcement of 'new VSTOL' has been mis-interpreted or was deliberately misleading -> have been posting other possibilities here as they show up like the Fregat tiltrotor drone.

hoom wrote: I got pics from http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/10/es-esta-la-propuesta-de-kamov-de.html who seems to have gotten them from Balancer Ka-52 thread.
{}
I posted here because I don't believe it makes sense for Russia to spend huge money/engineering effort to develop a new gen VSTOL fighter that would only be built in small numbers & I suspect the announcement of 'new VSTOL' has been mis-interpreted or was deliberately misleading -> have been posting other possibilities here as they show up like the Fregat tiltrotor drone.

(1) Thanks a bunch for the link, I wasn't aware this was so fresh news. Im glad to see this concept as next step to vertical transport/fire support vehicles. Great concept both for land and amphibious operations. This is yet another proof that future vertical lift concepts will be more and more popular. If you look around in the world USMC wants to have also AEW platforms vertical lift... not only fighters, transport or fire support.

(2) with order cuts for A and C versions VSTOL F-35b has good chance to constitute 60% of all ordered units

(3) As for Russian VSTOL fighter. This was officially announced by MoD/deputy PD Borisov who said that program started by personal order of the Supreme Commander. Or President Putin if you prefer. Unless Putin changes his decision nothing stop this one.

To me rationale behind decision is fairly straightforward
a) after Su-57 is delivered only MiG-41 will be a new fighter programme in RuAF. Will you fire all design engineers especially when you have only 1 perspective fighter model?
b) VSTOL fighter is not only great platform for navy but also for land forces.
c) Current navy fighters either will soon be retired (Su-33) or are far frome being good and there are only 22 of them (MiG-29k)
d) last but not least VSTOL is yet another frontier in technology to be reached

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Wiki:
Tu-22M with payload 12 tons  at supersonic speeds: 1500–1850 km


MiG-31  at an altitude of 18000 m, with M = 2.35: 720 km (2,35 is supercruise speed for  MiG)


Now add 1,300 km for Kiznhal - 2000km MiG,  2800-3150km Tu. In such case it seems that  MiGs speed nor ceiling is not that much of an advantage. Unless this is not dezinfo injection.

That fits surprisingly well!
We don't need to take the info as it was ultra-exact, they are rounding the ranges to next closest 1000 km so there is quite a bit granularity on those numbers. Significance is what matters, so it may be 200 km more or less without changing the military value of the weapon system.

Then please focus next time. I was mentioning about last concept/proposal fo  Yak r VSTOL in 90s. Yak never had 25 years time  and billions invested as MiG-29k.

Will skip the focus part since you keep ignoring my data post after post
As to the billions spent in MiG-29, you refer rubles right? Naval planes have been neglected in Russia for a good while and essentially just managed to barely survive. A thing that the Yak did not manage to do BTW. A plane that has not been produced has no confirmed technical characteristics so it is moot to talk about them.

(1) None of above. Name dunno. Besides Pictures of model I've posted already in this thread.
(2) source: Gordon Yefim: Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 and Yak-41, Soviet "Jump Jets", page 122 The Next-generation Aircraft (VTOL)
(3) payload was 4,200 kg

Look, there are hundreds of pictures of Yak and MiG proposals from the 80's to early 2000's. And none of them mean anything unless they got built and hence proved any basic feasibility and technical characteristics. This approach is not going to fly with me and I guess neither with most people. It is like you laughing at the possibility of a naval Su-57 or MQ-25 but then basing your arguments on non-existing F/A-XX and Yaks. It is simply shameless.

Wow, so you try to make living from technical field and claim 4,200 is 70% 4,500 ?! what about becoming a florist?      

Probably I would get more intelligent conversation from flowers than from you, I was referring to the 2.6 tons of the Yak-141

Not really, I am only bringing the real life data to everlasting bliss of "ski-bar && real" fighters which can do all and dont need replacement ever.

wiki (you can verify https://cag.gov.in)
"In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours"

Now tell me how Yak is guilty of this?

When one would think you could not get lower than the last point you come to quote Indians as proof of the crap the MiGs are...compared to non-existing Yaks, bravo!
Yak did not manage to get the 141 working properly so there is no operative life even to begin comparing.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Wiki:
Tu-22M with payload 12 tons  at supersonic speeds: 1500–1850 km


MiG-31  at an altitude of 18000 m, with M = 2.35: 720 km (2,35 is supercruise speed for  MiG)


Now add 1,300 km for Kiznhal - 2000km MiG,  2800-3150km Tu. In such case it seems that  MiGs speed nor ceiling is not that much of an advantage. Unless this is not dezinfo injection.

That fits surprisingly well!  
We don't need to take the info as it was ultra-exact, they are rounding the ranges to next closest 1000 km so there is quite a bit granularity on those numbers. Significance is what matters, so it may be 200 km more or less without changing the military value of the weapon system.

I agree that those are nto exact numbers, it looks just as nice coincidence or something        it that's true then one thing is here important to me:  All carriers are going to launch point very fast (2-2,35 Ma) what leaves little time for CSG to prepare for changing course,preparing to defend.

(2) source: Gordon Yefim: Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 and Yak-41, Soviet "Jump Jets", page 122 The Next-generation Aircraft (VTOL)
(3) payload was 4,200 kg

Look, there are hundreds of pictures of Yak and MiG proposals from the 80's to early 2000's. And none of them mean anything unless they got built and hence proved any basic feasibility and technical characteristics. This approach is not going to fly with me and I guess neither with most people. It is like you laughing at the possibility of a naval Su-57 or MQ-25 but then basing your arguments on non-existing F/A-XX and Yaks. It is simply shameless.

Naval Su-57 nor flying MQ-25 dont exist neither. FA/XX unlike navalized Su-57 will be real  deck fighter.  This i snot shameless of course. And Yak is guilty again

BTW MiG-  had lost all competitions after 29.  Only Soviet legacy of MiG-29 and MiG-31 saved its existence. Otherwise it would end up like Yak. At best.

You can deny as much as you want but simply MiG-29k is a dead end. RuN has only 22 pieces in working conditions.  Not surprisingly RuN preferred to ask for VSTOL fighter then extend life of the "real fighter of days of future past"

Yak did not manage to get the 141 working properly so there is no operative life even to begin comparing.

Yak-141 has 1 lost fighter MiG-29k only - 4 after 25 years of contiguous improvement. DAT is result  what flowers are saying now?

USMC wants to have also AEW platforms vertical lift

This will be relatively cheap to develop because they have an existing large fleet of LHDs that can't operate conventional planes & the already developed MV-22 to base it on.

(2) with order cuts for A and C versions VSTOL F-35b has good chance to constitute 60% of all ordered units

You got a reference for A & C cuts?
F-35B made sense because its going on the existing large fleet of USMC LHDs + likely market of several Euro VTOL carriers/LHDs.
Russia would have a target market of max 4 domestic ships, a couple for India & maybe a small sale to China (who will then produce competing product).

(3) As for Russian VSTOL fighter. This was officially announced by MoD/deputy PD Borisov who said that program started by personal order of the Supreme Commander. Or President Putin if you prefer. Unless Putin changes his decision nothing stop this one.

Something was announced certainly.
With the vagaries of translation & I don't believe I've seen an Official direct quote -> also allowing for reporter misunderstanding I'm not convinced that it was explicitly a VSTOL Fighter that was announced.

a) after Su-57 is delivered only MiG-41 will be a new fighter programme in RuAF. Will you fire all design engineers especially when you have only 1 perspective fighter model?

I think there is no shortage of tasks that need good design/engineers.

Kinzhal from the MiG-31 has a flight range of up to 2,000km.

The same missile from the Tu-22M3M is expected to have a flight range of about 1,500km.

The total range from the runway the aircraft operates from is not really as important as the range from launch to impact... because that is the distance the launch aircraft will be from the ship defences and that is what counts.

It is not a huge difference in performance, but then Mach 2.4 at probably 12-14 thousand metres altitude vs mach 2 at perhaps 10 thousand metres is not that much of a difference either.

Little off-topic...

GarryB wrote:Kinzhal from the MiG-31 has a flight range of up to 2,000km.

The same missile from the Tu-22M3M is expected to have a flight range of about 1,500km.

The total range from the runway the aircraft operates from is not really as important as the range from launch to impact... because that is the distance the launch aircraft will be from the ship defences and that is what counts.

It is not a huge difference in performance, but then Mach 2.4 at probably 12-14 thousand metres altitude vs mach 2 at perhaps 10 thousand metres is not that much of a difference either.

I remember Mindstorm made this estimation you mention, but do you have any other source? The one I provided said 3000 km for launch from Tu-22.

In fact the range of the carrier is relevant if you are talking about dashing and striking in minimum time possible, I would say. But then it is perfectly normal to leave some ambiguity when disclosing data about a new and revolutionary weapon system...

hoom wrote:

USMC wants to have also AEW platforms vertical lift

This will be relatively cheap to develop because they have an existing large fleet of LHDs that can't operate conventional planes & the already developed MV-22 to base it on.

Taking into account thet VDV wants to have tiltroror and Mi-42 concept "implementation" I can see this a reasonable way for Russia to acquire a decent AEW platform. instead of spending money o spending yet another billion on an extra platform not needed anywhere else.

hoom wrote:

(2) with order cuts for A and C versions VSTOL F-35b has good chance to constitute 60% of all ordered units

You got a reference for A & C cuts?
F-35B made sense because its going on the existing large fleet of USMC LHDs + likely market of several Euro VTOL carriers/LHDs.
Russia would have a target market of max 4 domestic ships, a couple for India & maybe a small sale to China (who will then produce competing product).

(1) F-35

My apologies I've rechecked and so far no C cuts only A. I was also wrong A shouldn't be counted here.      



Air Force Risks Losing Third of F-35s on Upkeep Costs
Operating costs may force cutting 590 fighters, analysis finds
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

Originally USAF was to order ~1760 F-35 cutting by 600 is slashing by 1/3. Even if we add other customers cuts so far only referred to A. But comparing to Us orders this is negligible.
Situation for seaborne fighters is different though.


Planned: source wiki:
F-35 type........USMC........USN.............UK...........Italy..........Turkey.........Spain.(they  use only VSTOL)................Total:

B......................260..............0.............138............30..............(30?)..........(30?)..........................................................428....(without Turkey)

C......................80*...........260...............0...............0...................0...............0.............................................................320....(260 on ships)

USMC -C will never to be seaborne only to balance procurement ;-)

(2) Chinese VSTOL

Fairly unlikely that Russian VSTOL  finds its market in China. They already are working own VSTOL fighter. (Hello GB and LMFS       )


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-military/china-developing-key-aircraft-to-build-amphibious-capabilities-idUSKBN0NY0SV20150513

hoom wrote:

(3) As for Russian VSTOL fighter. This was officially announced by MoD/deputy PD Borisov who said that program started by personal order of the Supreme Commander. Or President Putin if you prefer. Unless Putin changes his decision nothing stop this one.

Something was announced certainly.With the vagaries of translation & I don't believe I've seen an Official direct quote -> also allowing for reporter misunderstanding I'm not convinced that it was explicitly a VSTOL Fighter that was announced

.
You fo course have full right to be skeptical. but
(a) would you think that to replace MiG-29k and Su-33 there will b ea chopper?      
(b) do you think that development of naval helo is the case for Supreme Commander or President Putin if one prefers?      





https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4754447






https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808211243-1c61.htm

hoom wrote:a) after Su-57 is delivered only MiG-41 will be a new fighter programme in RuAF. Will you fire all design engineers especially when you have only 1 perspective fighter model?

I think there is no shortage of tasks that need good design/engineers.[/quote]

There would be no new fighter project for fighter besides MiG-41. What else do you see?

Well then, thats a pretty comprehensive demolition of my argument

Operating costs may force cutting 590 fighters, analysis finds

Not surprised that there are cuts but I'd missed that news.

Of course, - said Borisov, answering the question whether the work on the aircraft vertical take-off for the aircraft carrier.
- It is logical to assume that during this time, those models, I mean the MiG-29 and su-33 will become obsolete and
in ten years will require the creation of a new flying vehicle. There are such plans, " Borisov said.

"Now we are working on the creation of conceptual models and prototypes. Of course, this is the future of all aircraft carrying ships.
A new machine park of flying vehicles is needed, for this purpose various technologies are used that allow shortened take-off and landing
or simply vertical take-off. Conceptually, work is already underway in the Ministry of defence since last year," Borisov said.
+++
He specified that this development is included in the state program of arms
and is carried out on order of the Supreme commander.

Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes
Yeah, I've been wrong on that

There would be no new fighter project for fighter besides MiG-41. What else do you see?

Well there is PAK-DA, PAK-TA, LMFS, fast helicopter, Su-25 replacement, new MPA,  & I've thought short term navalised Su-30 & AEW version, with longer term project to navalise Su-57, maybe a Su-34ised tactical bomber version.
IMO needs new tanker & AEW too.

Really no shortage of new planes to be designed within a limited budget/engineering resource.
Not to mention huge amounts of bits & bobs in need of import substitution.

When talking about ATGMs you don't include the flight range of the Attack helicopter...

From what I remember reading, when the information about the Kinzhal launched from the MiG-31 the range of the missile given was "up to 2,000km"... which makes sense because it could launch the weapon from different heights and different speeds, which would effect range dramatically for a solid rocket fuelled missile.

When they mentioned that the upgraded Tu-22M3M was going to also carry the weapon they mentioned a range of 1,500km for the weapon but also mentioned the fact that the aircraft itself has a decent range and that could add to the "reach" of the weapon.

The Tu-22M3M is supposed to have a flight range of 10,000km, so operational radius of 5,000km... or more likely 4,000km with a fuel reserve... however the M3M model has inflight refuelling so its range could be practically anything you want with support tankers.

I assumed the difference in flight range (2,000km vs 1,500km) is based on the fact that the MiG-31 is a mach 2.4 aircraft able to climb to at least 18km altitude with weapons, while the Tu-22M3M is a mach 2 aircraft with a ceiling of about 10-12km... being launched at a lower speed in slightly thicker air is bound to effect range.

Because of the capacity of the Backfire there is no reason why they could not add a solid rocket booster to the rear of the Kinzhal that accelerates it to more than mach 2.4 and higher than 18km altitude and not only recover the lost performance but actually build upon it, but to be honest I think this was a quick and easy thing that could be done without much fuss to get a hypersonic manouvering weapon into operational service... now that the INF treaty is a gonner then it wont be long before not just solid rocket missiles, but also scramjet powered missiles start to enter service in ground and air and sea launched versions.

I remember a few years ago having a discussion with a member regarding a naval version of the Iskander... I poo pooed the idea because 500km range is not big enough, and making a decent ranged missile... ie 1,500-3,500km range missile would risk the US accusing Russia of breaking the spirit of the INF treaty... especially if the new missile could fit in Iskander launchers... but of course now it really does not matter...

Taking into account thet VDV wants to have tiltroror and Mi-42 concept "implementation" I can see this a reasonable way for Russia to acquire a decent AEW platform. instead of spending money o spending yet another billion on an extra platform not needed anywhere else.

They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.

Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes Embarassed
Yeah, I've been wrong on that

And when it does not work they will navalise the Su-57 and get a decent naval fighter again.

hoom wrote:Well then, thats a pretty comprehensive demolition of my argument

apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause      

hoom wrote:Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes
Yeah, I've been wrong on that

yesterday in auto translator they were missing too... I translated manually most of text...    

hoom wrote:

There would be no new fighter project for fighter besides MiG-41. What else do you see?

Well there is PAK-DA, PAK-TA, LMFS, fast helicopter, Su-25 replacement, new MPA,  & I've thought short term navalised Su-30 & AEW version, with longer term project to navalise Su-57, maybe a Su-34ised tactical bomber version.
IMO needs new tanker & AEW too.

Really no shortage of new planes to be designed within a limited budget/engineering resource.
Not to mention huge amounts of bits & bobs in need of import substitution.

OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.


(1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)

(2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.

(3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57


(4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57

GarryB wrote:

Taking into account thet VDV wants to have tiltroror and Mi-42 concept "implementation" I can see this a reasonable way for Russia to acquire a decent AEW platform. instead of spending money o spending yet another billion on an extra platform not needed anywhere else.

They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO  as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.

We were talking about shipborne application. Ka-31 is still product of 80 yet upgraded and new gen one.

And when it does not work they will navalise the Su-57 and get a decent naval fighter again.

I'm sre than VSTOL version of Su-57 would yield a great fighter

They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.

Yak-44 was what you are suggesying. But they canceled it. A cheap alternative to A-100, naval version could be used on the ground so that they could replace those on the carriers if needed. Special version for ELINT or small refuel tanker could have been also developed.

For VDV, aircrafts are better than helicopters/tiltrotors specially for paratroupers. Since they can carry more, longer range and they are fast so they can escape to potentiel fighters quickly.

GarryB wrote:When talking about ATGMs you don't include the flight range of the Attack helicopter...

We will agree Kinzhal is not exactly an ATGM but a revolutionary substrategic weapon, maybe not yet in the catalogue of Rosoboronexport with all characteristics disclosed

I remember a few years ago having a discussion with a member regarding a naval version of the Iskander... I poo pooed the idea because 500km range is not big enough, and making a decent ranged missile... ie 1,500-3,500km range missile would risk the US accusing Russia of breaking the spirit of the INF treaty... especially if the new missile could fit in Iskander launchers... but of course now it really does not matter...

I also have not made any numbers but I would have had the same first impression as you, from 500 to 2000 km there is quite a gap. If I were not that lazy (or "busy", to be politically correct) would check in a ballistic simulator and put the doubt to rest...

STOVL Man wrote:(2) Chinese VSTOL
Fairly unlikely that Russian VSTOL finds its market in China. They already are working own VSTOL fighter. (Hello GB and LMFS lol1 lol1 lol1 )

Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs? Would you be so kind to read you own quote?

The official China Daily, citing experts, said progress was being made in research on components for short take-off and vertical landing jets, \
which they said could be deployed on China’s lone aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and other ships to complement its fighter jets.

Chinese researchers are getting closer to developing a military aircraft seen as key to building the country’s amphibious capabilities

“The navy can deploy helicopters and STOVL aircraft on the amphibious assault ship, designating helicopters to conduct anti-submarine tasks and using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense as well as air-to-surface strikes,” Senior Captain Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told China Daily.

Yak wrote:apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause respekt respekt respekt

A man in a sacred mission indeed

Simplicity Florist Man asked me: wrote:(2) Chinese VSTOL {}
Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs? Would you be so kind to read you own quote?

And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?       As for requites pls check below. Same text just more cropped for your convenience.



I cannot understand why neither Royal Navy, nor  USMC  and even Chinese Navy  want VSTOLS?