New Russian Naval VTOL?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
New Russian Naval VTOL?
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/cont...32106-gpni.htm
The Ministry of Defense will develop vertical takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier - Borisov
The plans are being discussed in the context of the draft state arms program and the measures planned in it.
The work on creating vertical takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier is underway. This was reported by Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov.
Earlier, the head of the committee of the Council of Federation on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev said that the agreed amount of the state armaments program (2018-2025) is 19 trillion rubles. According to him, the state program is in the final stage. He clarified that in some areas of work in the new GPV prolonged until 2027. ■
The Ministry of Defense will develop vertical takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier - Borisov
The plans are being discussed in the context of the draft state arms program and the measures planned in it.
The work on creating vertical takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier is underway. This was reported by Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov.
"There are such plans: with a short take-off and landing and with vertical take-off," Borisov said.
Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models could become obsolete in ten years. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will require the creation of a new aircraft. He added that the plans are being discussed in the context of the draft state arms program and the measures planned in it.Earlier, the head of the committee of the Council of Federation on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev said that the agreed amount of the state armaments program (2018-2025) is 19 trillion rubles. According to him, the state program is in the final stage. He clarified that in some areas of work in the new GPV prolonged until 2027. ■
Interesting. This source implies a Yak-141 “based” aircraft. https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/...carriers-drama
Time to dust of the old and call it new? So has Russia abandoned cat and trap aspirations? The last carrier deployment was a disaster, really highlighting the limitations of ski jump/arrested landing operations.
Time to dust of the old and call it new? So has Russia abandoned cat and trap aspirations? The last carrier deployment was a disaster, really highlighting the limitations of ski jump/arrested landing operations.
Interesting. This source implies a Yak-141 “based” aircraft. https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/...carriers-drama
Time to dust of the old and call it new? So has Russia abandoned cat and trap aspirations? The last carrier deployment was a disaster, really highlighting the limitations of ski jump/arrested landing operations.
Time to dust of the old and call it new? So has Russia abandoned cat and trap aspirations? The last carrier deployment was a disaster, really highlighting the limitations of ski jump/arrested landing operations.
That blog also mentions that the Russians may also developing a tilt-rotor. Should be interesting to behold, if it ever sees the light of day.
And there's me thinking Russia could barely afford to keep its pensioners fed and housed.
Probably a development of the illfated Yak 43 that ended up in part being used in the F35 design when Lockheed and Yakovlev had a partnership in the 90s.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-astovl-25571/
This is a mock up of what might have been:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-astovl-25571/
This is a mock up of what might have been:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The problem the Russians have isn’t airframes, it’s engines. Their modern aircraft are using upgrades of old designs, and they are a couple of generations behind the West. So the design might be great, but the size and payload is going to be about 70% of any design using a PW/GE/RR engine.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably a development of the illfated Yak 43 that ended up in part being used in the F35 design when Lockheed and Yakovlev had a partnership in the 90s.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-astovl-25571/
This is a mock up of what might have been:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-astovl-25571/
This is a mock up of what might have been:
Below is the full text of the Flight Global article.
21 June, 1995
Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev are discussing a technology-access agreement whereby the US Company would be able to utilise Yakovlev's work on its ASTOVL designs. The deal has yet to be cleared by the US Department of Defense (DoD).
Mickey Blackwell, president of Lockheed Martin's aeronautics sector, says that the company cannot gain access to British Aerospace ASTOVL technologies because of the commercial agreement between the UK company and McDonnell Douglas.
Lockheed Martin is in competition with McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace on the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) programme. This is aimed at eventually producing both a conventional take-off and landing and an ASTOVL aircraft for the US Air force and US Navy.
Blackwell says that the company has tried to persuade the UK Ministry of Defence, which has a memorandum of understanding with the DoD on JAST, that it should have access to UK industrial information.
Bevo
Have a look at my post again “This is a mock up of what might have been” precedes the Deviantart stuff...
The Yak43 was on the drawing board and the Yak41 and subsequent Yak141 did fly before it all went wrong for the programme and the USSR. Some of the basic design elements are spookily similar to the F35B...
...I saw it with my own eyes at Farnborough in 1992
More reporting on the collaboration: Lockheed wants to work with Yakovlev on STOVL design work | AWIN content from Aviation Week
Have a look at my post again “This is a mock up of what might have been” precedes the Deviantart stuff...
The Yak43 was on the drawing board and the Yak41 and subsequent Yak141 did fly before it all went wrong for the programme and the USSR. Some of the basic design elements are spookily similar to the F35B...
...I saw it with my own eyes at Farnborough in 1992
More reporting on the collaboration: Lockheed wants to work with Yakovlev on STOVL design work | AWIN content from Aviation Week
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 16th Dec 2017 at 23:10.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why all those stupid plan to develop air carriers. Better concentrate on more vital programmes.
Carriers are needed for US, UK and France - i.e. for those who have overseas territories.
Carriers are needed for US, UK and France - i.e. for those who have overseas territories.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van - the US has the following overseas territories:-
It's all about power projection using the 71% of the earth's surface you can't drive a T-72 (or an Abrahms) over
- American Samoa
- Bajo Nuevo Bank
- Baker Island
- Howland Island
- Guam
- Jarvis Island
- Johnston Atoll
- Kingman Reef
- Midway Islands
- Navassa Island
- Northern Mariana Islands
- Palmyra Atoll
- Puerto Rico
- Serranilla Bank
- US Virgin Islands
- Wake Island
It's all about power projection using the 71% of the earth's surface you can't drive a T-72 (or an Abrahms) over
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
It has Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific and doesn’t intend to leave it undefended again. And, after WWi and WWII it thinks it prudent not to leave the other side of either the Atlantic or Pacific unattended again.
Last edited by ORAC; 17th Dec 2017 at 13:55.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
US is a special case as they consider themselves as a "world policeman". In this case not only 71% is targeted but quite some of the remaining 29% (like op's in middle East, Gulf, etc.). I am not sure such a "policeman" is not needed in the modern world, but the current one is often so much biased and full of dual standards...
Carriers are needed for US, UK and France - i.e. for those who have overseas territories.
Yes, the Yak141 was quite something at the 1992 Farnborough Air Show. During the morning the Russians were quite happy for people to take a close look at it - I was surprised at the crudeness of some of the finish.
In the afternoon it thundered off, did a few flybys and then a decel. which took most of Hampshire before it slowed to a deafening and very spectacular hover - which I gather caused some runway surface problems. Then a conventional landing, to the sound of thousands of car alarms bleating away.
But where did it carry its fuel? The thirst of that huge afterburning engine must have been prodigious!
An interesting year - the Russians welcomed everyone to look around their jets and were trying to flog various bits of uniform. Possibly the last time so many different Russian aircraft were able to be seen at such close distances - Fencer, Foxhound (or was it -bat?), Fulcrum, Frogfoot, Freestyle, Forger, Flanker, to name just a few!
In the afternoon it thundered off, did a few flybys and then a decel. which took most of Hampshire before it slowed to a deafening and very spectacular hover - which I gather caused some runway surface problems. Then a conventional landing, to the sound of thousands of car alarms bleating away.
But where did it carry its fuel? The thirst of that huge afterburning engine must have been prodigious!
An interesting year - the Russians welcomed everyone to look around their jets and were trying to flog various bits of uniform. Possibly the last time so many different Russian aircraft were able to be seen at such close distances - Fencer, Foxhound (or was it -bat?), Fulcrum, Frogfoot, Freestyle, Forger, Flanker, to name just a few!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It has Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific and doesn’t intend to leave it undefended again. And, after WWi and WWII it thinks it prudent not to leave the other side of either the Atlantic or Pacific unattended again."
Trouble is with that you finish up the the British Empire in NW India - you say there's to the boundary - then you finish up stepping over it to deal with "threats" which leads you to push the boundary further out which leads you to step over.........................
Trouble is with that you finish up the the British Empire in NW India - you say there's to the boundary - then you finish up stepping over it to deal with "threats" which leads you to push the boundary further out which leads you to step over.........................
