Russian VTOL fighter development

PapaDragon wrote:
Wasting time and money on aircraft carrier is mistake by default but with STOVL they will waste less time and money and VKS just might get a new light fighter jet out of the whole thing.

Quite difficult that they don't end up wasting more time and money than making a proper carrier. Such a light fighter for the VKS, by being made compatible with STOVL requirements, would end up being a failure like the F-35 (actually I find the F-35 as good as such a concept can get) due to design constrains that do not appear easy to solve (namely, central engine position + vertical lift propulsion competing with weapons bays and forcing an excessive plane frontal section, see picture). The development would cost billions and lead to a subpar fighter. Better employ them in a properly matched carrier / light fighter design so the plane can operate with reasonable loads from the deck and be directly usable by the air force.



Besides, making a STOVL fighter specific for the naval fleet of the RF would make an economic sense close to zero. How many planes would be ordered in the end, 100 at the best? This would be a complete frivolity.

Not that I discard that this is what happens (sadly) but unless they manage a breakthrough design and to somehow steal the customers from the F-35 they would lose big time with such plane

Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters. Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper. May prove helpful in all rounds.

So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy. Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).

India & Thailand could buy some to replace their Harriers, not to mention China for her LH/PDs.
We discussed it in depth already. I also wonder if a steeper ski jump rump can eliminate the need for STOVL?

miketheterrible wrote:Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters.  Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper.  May prove helpful in all rounds.

So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy.  Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).

Yeah, I was being optimistic and thinking of 4 -5 carriers at least, so that number of planes may take decades to be reached...

I agree on the rest. But the problem is that the fighter for the air force would have, in order to have at least a minimum commonality with STOVL version, the engine in a central position. If you add this to the lifting devices (engines or fan) and the fact that as a 5G fighter some level of internal carriage of weapons is needed, then you need to make the plane grow transversally to put inside all those things.

Result is VERY bad, essentially unacceptable for a light fighter design. Increased cross section forces heavier, draggier plane and that in time forces bigger engine with additional weight creep, but in the end you cannot avoid the plane having suboptimal dynamic characteristics. F-35 is there for anyone to check what I say. As soon as you meet fighters not so heavily compromised you are going to find out how dangerous that design path was.

PapaDragon wrote:
There is no need for engine to be in central position when you convert STOVL aircraft to standard takeoff aircraft.

Lifting devices (fan) will not be present in standard version and that space will most likely be occupied by additional fuel tank.

Internal weapons will be mandatory and this is perfectly normal. As for the amount, this is light fighter so weapons load will be smaller by definition.

Fact is that airforce wants light single engine fighter. Getting it funded is a hassle as always but if they can also solve the issue of carrier aviation refusing to cease it's existence and solve two problems at the same time then it's a whole different story.

This way both Navy and VKS get new plane, Navy focuses on helicopter carriers (ships they actually need and can get in usable numbers) that will double as aircraft carriers thus saving both insane amounts of money and appeasing their overinflated egos while whole supercarrier idiocy is finally relegated to oblivion once and for all.

Now that is a clear opinion!

Would agree on the double role, doing otherwise really makes me wonder where the money for both ship types in useful numbers is going to come from, but due to industry development issues it seems they plan to proceed progressively with ships of increasing size until they are capable of producing CVNs. Hell, if they can maintain their 10:1 return on military investment against US also in carriers, they could get one for little over 1 billion

The fighter part... agree on most of your comments but see it very difficult to change engine position without developing two different planes. In general I think there are innovative ways to solve this issue of the naval aviation waiting to be explored, but without moving from conventional approaches, a carrier with characteristics similar to those of the Charles de Gaulle would be at the same time very powerful without being such an overkill as a 100 kT one.

Well now it's official.  VSTOL for fleet. I dont think news about universal LHD was so unrelated


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



https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180821/1526929317.html

Kubinka (Moscow region), August 21 - RIA Novosti. The Ministry of Defense began developing a new plane with vertical take-off and landing, Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Borisov said at the opening of the military-technical forum "Army-2018".


According to him, the project was included in the state program of armaments on behalf of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
"Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes.Thank you, this is the future.For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed.This is why different technologies are used to ensure shortened take-off and landing or simply vertical take-off. are conducted in the Ministry of Defense from last year, "he said.

He noted that the timing of the creation of a new aircraft is determined by the technological cycle.

"Typically, this is 7-10 years, if you go to the series," - said Borisov.

In the USSR, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft have already been produced - more than 230 Yak-38 fighters. It was replaced by Yak-141, but in 2004 the program was canceled. The aircraft was based on the aircraft carrying cruisers of project 1143 (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Baku), which they sold abroad.

we have thread for this already

He´s just excited.

@Gunship:

Congratulations man, they are f*cking up!

Hole wrote:He´s just excited.

you know, not every day Putin confirms you were right

LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

Congratulations man, they are f*cking up!

and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS? then perhaps you're right

BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS?  then perhaps you're right  

BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.

Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version. At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions. And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

If you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels. For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster...

LMFS wrote: Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version.

in absence of CTOL com;romising wont be needed?

At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

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

It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions.

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

And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?

Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!

if you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels.

wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!

For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

TAKR (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there. Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.

Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster...

too late

Borisov: on the instructions of Putin, a prototype of a vertical takeoff aircraft

Such a machine can appear in 7-10 years, noted the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

Krylovsky Center developed a pre-design for a light aircraft carrier

The new project will cost, according to preliminary estimates, almost twice cheaper than the previous concept of the heavy aircraft carrier "Storm"
rom the accompanying materials it follows that the new aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft. The power plant of the ship will be a gas turbine.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445

PapaDragon wrote:Feels good man....

you bet

now lets wait for resumption of 40-60k TAKR concepts and I will be sure Uncle Vova reads thsi forum

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

Developing a plane is some billions. Shtorm is just a way of teasing the public opinion IMO, not a realistic project.

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

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

Of course it has to be good. If not, then take the Yak-141 and you are done at a fraction of the cost

The engine position in a STOVL is not the same as in a CTOL. You need it placed forward and it then steals useful space in the middle section of the plane, which is specially serious in case of weapon bays. In essence, to optimize a CTOL version your are going to need redesign the plane entirely, unless they come with a f*cking clever arrangement I have not yet seen...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:in absence of CTOL  com;romising  wont be needed?

You have a wonderful way of misunderstanding everything I say don't you?  

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

Sure. There are some pretty interesting designs of Yak-141 evolutions. And if they don't go for big weapons bays they may get something decent... maybe

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

Well, that would be actually cool. You can put a VTOL fighter instead the rescue helo in the frigates too  

Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?
Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!

Su-57 would take off from K full load on the short runs... with 3500 km range and 4 x R37M for instance. Or loaded as a bomb truck if needed.
The reason for the big carriers are not the fighters as discussed, it is the rest of the planes! And why UK bought that thing is beyond me to start with  
Inferior as multirole fighter, almost in every metric, but maybe in size. But especially inferior in AD which is its most critical role.

wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!

You need far less AD cover in form of expensive frigates and missile destroyers if you have proper AEW and long range fighters on board.

TAKR  (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there.  Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.

A TAKR (Kuznetsov or new light carrier if I am not wrong) does not need STOVL, those would deploy on LHDs... or am I missing something?

Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster...

too late      

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:in absence of CTOL  com;romising  wont be needed?

You have a wonderful way of misunderstanding everything I say don't you?  

the idea of VSTOL is nto to take off on long lanes but as short as possible.

S
Su-57 would take off from K full load on the short runs... with 3500 km range and 4 x R37M for instance. Or loaded as a bomb truck if needed.

Short take off mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?

wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!

You need far less AD cover in form of expensive frigates and missile destroyers if you have proper AEW and long range fighters on board.

what is proper AEW? in netcentric warfare small groupings of drones does the same job. Missile destroyers you dotn need so many as in US groups. simply to fight CSG you use Kiznahl. Otherwise you dream midway battles.

Airwing is for assigments like Arctic cover or Syrian style wars. Or Africa interventions. Not full scale Midway battles.

A TAKR (Kuznetsov or new light carrier if I am not wrong) does not need STOVL, those would deploy on LHDs... or am I missing something?

you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.

Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster...

nyet gospodin LMFS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Short take off  mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?

You mean short take off as in STOVL? The Su-57 with izd. 30 will have close to 35 ton thrust... you could almost launch it vertically like a rocket
As to the capacity of the K with such plane, it should be similar to the Su-33, with the advantage that it is shorter. All depends of course on the wing folding mechanism, this we don't know yet.

you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.

MiG-33Ks are there. Su-57 available. STOVL is to give fixed wing aircraft to LHDs and similar.

Yak-43 multi-role V/STOL fighter (project)

In 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).

Like its predecessor, the Yak-43 was to have a cruise engine and separate lift jets; these were to be supplemented by an auxiliary combustion
chamber in the nose provided with air bleed piped from the main engine.

The latter was to be a derivative of the Kuznetsov NK-321 three-shaft afterburning turbofan with a take-off rating of 24,980 kgp (55,070
lbst; four such engines power the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber).
\
The Yak-43 promised a considerable improvement on the Yak-41 M in performance and combat capabilities. The wings of
bigger area ensured greater agility; the increased fuel tankage afforded a longer combat mission radius, the aircraft would be
capable of carrying a bigger weapons loadand would have a reduced radar signature.

However, with the Yak-41 M (Yak-141) shelved, the new project had no chances of reaching the hardware stage.

->>> my comment now is has      

OKB Yakovlev
А HISTORYOF ТНЕ DESIGN BUREAU AND ITS AIRCRAFT

Yefim Gordon
Dmitriy Komissarov
and Sergey Komissarov

page 346

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Short take off  mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?

You mean short take off as in STOVL? The Su-57 with izd. 30 will have close to 35 ton thrust... you could almost launch it vertically like a rocket
As to the capacity of the K with such plane, it should be similar to the Su-33, with the advantage that it is shorter. All depends of course on the wing folding mechanism, this we don't know yet.

1) sure, min take off (check Russian wiki) is 350m. With ski-jump but Kuz has300 m or so
2) bigger plane less space 1,5/2 more than F-35B - smaller airwing
3) no need to build for one Kuz 24 Su-57 since you got new fighter doing the same job cheaper per unit.

LMFS wrote:

you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.

MiG-33Ks are there. Su-57 available. STOVL is to give fixed wing aircraft to LHDs and similar.

Su-57 is not available yet. Kuz will stay till 2040s AFAIK. TAKRs will IMHO go in series dure their universal applications: 3 roles in one ship due to modularity. Just cheaper option. Imagine - Mistral, AC and helo-carrier in one + command ship

The difference is displacement. Su-57 simply cannot go to 40-50k ships innumbers. Too big, too small numers can be embarked.



BTW Putin's green light, Borison support proves they didnt make brain-storming 10 times before making decisions ?  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Yak-43 multi-role V/STOL fighter (project)

In 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).

Like its predecessor, the Yak-43 was to have a cruise engine and separate lift jets; these were to be supplemented by an auxiliary combustion
chamber in the nose provided with air bleed piped from the main engine.

The latter was to be a derivative of the Kuznetsov NK-321 three-shaft afterburning turbofan with a take-off rating of 24,980 kgp (55,070
lbst; four such engines power the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber).
\
The Yak-43 promised a considerable improvement on the Yak-41 M in performance and combat capabilities. The wings of
bigger area ensured greater agility; the increased fuel tankage afforded a longer combat mission radius, the aircraft would be
capable of carrying a bigger weapons loadand would have a reduced radar signature.

However, with the Yak-41 M (Yak-141) shelved, the new project had no chances of reaching the hardware stage.

That combustion chamber in the nose is a smart idea, since it allows to compensate  thrust at the tail more efficiently. Could allow better placement of main engine.

Also using the NK-32 makes sense, as PapaDragon says they have a modernized version now.

1) sure, min take off (check Russian wiki) is 350m. With ski-jump but Kuz has300 m or so
2) bigger plane less space 1,5/2 more than F-35B - smaller airwing
3) no need to build for one Kuz 24 Su-57 since you got new fighter doing the same job cheaper per unit.

1) This has nothing to do with STOBAR values, check here:
http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/
2) No, it depends on how well you use the space. Even if the footprint is much smaller but the available spaces are not enough to fit more planes, you remain with same numbers. Besides, we don't know the footprint of a navalized Su-57 against a F-35. Look the wing folding:


Don't have an exact measure but I'm pretty sure the folded Su-33 is narrower than the F-35C
3) That could be discussed of course, STVOL is not cheap. MiG-29K is also available.

Su-57 is not available yet. Kuz will stay till 2040s AFAIK. TAKRs will IMHO go in series dure their universal applications: 3 roles in one ship due to modularity.  Just cheaper option.  Imagine - Mistral, AC and helo-carrier in one + command ship        

The difference is displacement. Su-57 simply cannot go to 40-50k ships innumbers.  Too big, too small numers can be embarked.

Su-57 is available to develop a carrier version.

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

UAC discusses with the Ministry of Defense the creation of a plane with vertical take-off

The head of the corporation Yuri Slyusar did not specify the terms of the creation of such an aircraft, noting that it is premature to talk about this before receiving technical instructions from the customer

GELENDZHIK / Krasnodar Territory /, September 7. / TASS /. The parameters of the plane with vertical take-off are discussed with the Russian Defense Ministry, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation UAC Yury Slyusar said on Friday.

"[The project] at the stage of communication with the customer in the person of the Ministry of Defense, which is responsible for the requirements for this aircraft.There is such a theme, we are now actively communicating what kind of aircraft is needed, with what characteristics," he said at the exhibition "Gidroaviasalon-2018" .

Slyusar noted that a "virtual design bureau, a kind of cloud" was created inside the UAC, which unites the forces of all design schools in Russia. Within its framework, work is also being distributed to create promising machines. The head of the corporation did not specify the timing of the creation of such an aircraft, noting that it is premature to talk about this before receiving technical instructions from the customer.

Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, work has been carried out from last year on a prototype of a completely new vertical takeoff aircraft.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5535599

Good info Gunship, this means UAC will now receive information to start preliminary design estimations, possible project structure and maybe discuss what company within the corporation can be tasked with the development. Will be not easy, with two companies (Yakovlev and MiG) in need of funds. Yak would be the logical bureau for such design but MiG is needing also a deal, maybe if MiG-41 is given the go (don't know if there are funds for this beyond maybe preliminary studies) then they could have some relatively logical outcome. Without clear decisions in terms of carrier strategy it is difficult to calculate what number of planes will be bought and without that you cannot know the project's economic viability. This is IMO the biggest project risk right now.

LMFS wrote:Good info Gunship, this means UAC will now receive information to start preliminary design estimations, possible project structure and maybe discuss what company within the corporation can be tasked with the development. Will be not easy, with two companies (Yakovlev and MiG) in need of funds. Yak would be the logical bureau for such design but MiG is needing also a deal, maybe if MiG-41 is given the go (don't know if there are funds for this beyond maybe preliminary studies) then they could have some relatively logical outcome. Without clear decisions in terms of carrier strategy it is difficult to calculate what number of planes will be bought and without that you cannot know the project's economic viability. This is IMO the biggest project risk right now.

I dont think it will be any specific company - as they say "virtual teams" so Sukhoi,MiG perhaps Yak too. Perhaps it will have MiG or Yak badge but anyway its all OAK
Look MiG-35 is in fact only morally outdated but still a good fighter. Though they hibernated it. I guess it is as a backup plan in deck aviation if this program fails.


new fighter dont have to be also only deck based. Mind that Soviets wanted to have "front fighter" in STOL configuration, so perhaps concept is back yet with technology 40 years more advanced. My educated guess thatit's gonna be a light fighter with good maneuverability, V/STOL or STOL and less weight of perfect stealth . I.e. not to compromise fight performances with stealth.


For Kuz it would be 30+ anyway

A present to Gunship: Yakovlev article chanting the virtues of STOVL. Worth reading!

https://www.aviapanorama.ru/2018/08/korabelnye-samolety-na-puti-vybora-razumnoj-alternativy/