Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 569
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 15:44

No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 21:58

zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


Image

OMG no way!?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 569
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 22:54

deleted
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3246
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 22:56

Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 23:51

count_to_10 wrote:Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.



Russian navy has always been the odd man out... and the USSR used to have two branches of air force!
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 14:53

zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


As the old saying goes, go big or go home..

Building a 110,000t carrier and simultaneously pursuing a new VTOL fighter is a great cognitive dissonance. What's the point? You either go big with CAT's and fixed wing birds, go small with no CAT's and VTOL birds or... do neither. Sounds like they settled on subs, cruise missiles and some other odds and ends. Makes a lot more sense IMO...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4708
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 14:24

XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.



Russian navy has always been the odd man out... and the USSR used to have two branches of air force!


Hell, the US used to have FOUR: SAC, TAC, MAC, and ADC. :)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4589
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Nov 2017, 10:55

mixelflick wrote:
zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


As the old saying goes, go big or go home..

Building a 110,000t carrier and simultaneously pursuing a new VTOL fighter is a great cognitive dissonance. What's the point? You either go big with CAT's and fixed wing birds, go small with no CAT's and VTOL birds or... do neither. Sounds like they settled on subs, cruise missiles and some other odds and ends. Makes a lot more sense IMO...



Russia settled on Submarines, Cruise Missiles, and Frigates. Because that is all she can afford...... :shock:
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 569
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 01:15

Russia unlikely to build new aircraft carrier before 2030

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2030.html
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 13:56

So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria
2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's
3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.
4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL
5.) This new VTOL fighter is going to fly from... where again? Since they'll be no super-carrier, it won't be flying from there. Maybe they're thinking of building a QE type carrier? Whatever the case, no catapults equals very limited capability.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.

Inn, before COBRA321 corrects us saying everything's proceeding according to plan...
Offline

lrrpf52

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 14:24

milosh wrote:???

Where I said shipyard is ready? No where. I only said it will be capable to build huge ships in future, and new carrier isn't something to be expected tomorrow but at end of next decade.


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator

"The manufacturing capability of Russian plants make it possible to meet any assigned target. But I believe that its construction, if conditions are favorable, will take 10 years at least," the scientist said.

He believes that it is "impermissible" for the Russian Navy to have a small aircraft carrier because then it will be able to carry out only private missions and it will not have reconnaissance planes, aerial picket aircraft, target designation aircraft or assault aviation.

"At the same time, I do not agree that Russian aircraft carriers should necessarily have the same displacement as U.S. ships - 100, 000 tons and more. A gas turbine version of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier of the British Royal Navy has displacement of about 60,000 tons and has all the necessary aircraft in its arsenal," Polovinkin went on to say.

According to him, advanced Russian aircraft carriers will be able to compensate for their relatively small displacement by introducing radical changes to their hull.

The Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade has warned that the construction of advanced surface ships for offshore maritime zones could be postponed until 2035 due to underfunding if the Russian economy develops according to a pessimistic scenario.


Translation: We can build the biggest carriers, but it will take 10 years. We mustn't build small carriers, but it's ok if we do set the bar lower than US Ford Class nuke-powered carriers. We have a radical hull design that will make up for the displacement loss. In the end, we're broke and can't afford carriers at all based on realistic economic projections.
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 21:28

mixelflick wrote:So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria


Compared to a US Nimitz/Ford class? Not the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same sport. There's a critical size threshold where a carrier is able to undertake simultaneous launch and recovery operations. The Kuznetsov is below this threshold, and US supercarriers are above it. Simple as that. Furthermore, the Kuznetsov doesn't have catapults, which means it can't launch fixed-wing AEW aircraft. That makes it a lot less strategically independent than a US supercarrier.

But if you compare the Kuznetsov to other medium-sized carriers like the HMS Queen Elizabeth, INS Vikramaditya or even the Charles de Gaulle, it's not a bad ship. The biggest problems are the lack of crew experience and that the ship is badly in need of overhaul.

2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's


Not exactly. All in-service SU-33s are ancient, and it's not obvious that KnAAPO was even capable of making new ones. A lot of the initial development of the navalized Flankers was done in Ukraine, remember. In fact, the Chinese snagged a SU-33 prototype from Ukraine which they then reverse-engineered to make the J-15. The SU-33 has a fair number of unique parts from land-based Flankers, and those parts might have been sourced from Ukraine. It is entirely possible that the Russians can't currently make new SU-33s. This was a big problem for Russian Federation forces after the breakup of the USSR. The plant that made all their heavy machine guns was in Kazakhstan, the plant that made their SU-25s was in Georgia, and the plant that made all their T-80UDs was in Ukraine.

More likely the MiG-29K contract was a way to keep the lights on and the doors open at MiG, and have at least something that can fly off of their carrier. Their SU-33s are likely near the end of their service lives, and it might make more sense to keep MiG on life support than to develop a SLEP for the tiny SU-33 fleet.

3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.


I'll believe it when I see it.

4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL


I strongly suspect that this was a sensationalized mis-translation of a single out-of-context quote, but we'll see. The production SU-27 is completely redesigned from the initial T-10 prototypes because Sukhoi wasn't happy with the initial results. This could be a similar situation.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.


The Russians were recently reaching out to the UAE as potential partners in a new fifth-generation fighter program. I could see Turkey as another potential partner, if Russia and Turkey are able to resolve their differences over the situation in Syria and Turkey can't partner with the UK (who have better tech).
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 23:50

I don't know what to think about Russian aviation any more.
The more I look at it, the more mess I see.

When building a new A/C generation, you build a NEW aircraft generation.

The PAK-FA is build like all others before and since.
Rough, with a hammer and a screwdriver. If you look at some pictures, with overlapping panels, exposed stuff all around, a finish that does not even come close on how our F-104's were build half a century AGO.

Flying aircraft that still have to wait 5 more years for their engines?
Flying aircraft that don't even come close to 4th generation avionix?

Supposed to be LO RCS, but half of it is bare steel plate? ? How can one get something like that approved in the first place? ?

The ONLY use, and I mean the ONLY use I can see is a testbed for LEVCONS. probably the ONLY thing that performs more or less to specs.

Melt them down ASAP, and start over.

Russia building a VTOL? Not in your wettest dreams for the first 20 years or so.

Let's start with question number 1 : What engine?
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post11 Aug 2018, 00:12

Brings me on another brainwave I always get when seeing a Russian plane close up, be it a Mig or Su aircraft.

They did not read about, or understand RAM completely. ( or the translation was done by a Chinese guy reading Japanese ).

In Russian RAM means : Rough Amateurish Machinery.
:devil:

UNBELIEVABLE how they still rivet plates over plates over bulkheads.

If you guys even have the chance? ? ? ? Go see a Mig 29 center line tank. => You are warned ! ! ! OK?

PS, that CLT design and welding must have taken at least a double Wodka plus taxes to complete. LOL.

Do something alike in the West and they put you in jail .
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post11 Aug 2018, 04:36

mixelflick wrote:So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria
2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's
3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.
4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL
5.) This new VTOL fighter is going to fly from... where again? Since they'll be no super-carrier, it won't be flying from there. Maybe they're thinking of building a QE type carrier? Whatever the case, no catapults equals very limited capability.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.

Inn, before COBRA321 corrects us saying everything's proceeding according to plan...


Spot on!
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gideonic, hornetfinn and 11 guests