Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New Russian Naval VTOL?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New Russian Naval VTOL?

Old 16th Dec 2017, 15:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,197
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.
"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. ■
ORAC is online now  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 18:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 788
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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 19:12
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
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.
Wow, maybe they'll be able to push out its endurance to a good 30-40 minutes this time around...

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.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 20:34
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Or as someone said about the Sukhoi Su-24, "the best thing about the F-111 was that the damn-fool Russians copied it."
George K Lee is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 21:09
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,937
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:
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 21:55
  #6 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,197
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.
ORAC is online now  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 22:39
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 788
Thank you Lima, had never heard of the 43 project.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 23:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
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:
The post is mostly fake news on the concept for the YAK-43. The picture and information are from https://pak-faace1234.deviantart.com...TYLE-667990609 which is basically a site for members to develop amateur aviation art, not necessarily based on reality. The information on the graphic from that site says the plane flew in July 1997. The YAK-43 never flew, and a far as Lockheed using any of Yakovlev’s design work, that was mostly a Lockheed attempt to gain access to British Aerospace design knowledge. And Lockheed never shared any information on reducing radar cross section on any aircraft.

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 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 23:54
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,937
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

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 17th Dec 2017 at 00:10.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 00:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
I heard it with my own ears!

//I think they're still bleeding
George K Lee is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 09:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 530
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.
A_Van is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 09:45
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
I don't think China would agree with that list.
Biggus is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 12:10
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,833
Nice chock!

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 12:16
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Van - the US has the following overseas territories:-
I don't think any of them warrant an 11 strong CVN navy

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
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 13:00
  #15 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,197
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 14:55.
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 14:49
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Van - the US has the following overseas territories:


[snip]


I don't think any of them warrant an 11 strong CVN navy

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


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...
A_Van is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 15:43
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,510
Carriers are needed for US, UK and France - i.e. for those who have overseas territories.
Careful choice of words, the Ukraine isn’t overseas other than by circuitous routing.
West Coast is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 18:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,552
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!
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2017, 09:11
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"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.........................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2017, 19:05
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 70
Posts: 1,400
"Foxhound (or was it -bat?),"
It was the "Hound" Beags. Parked not far from the recce "Bencer"
Haraka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.