The prospect of equipping future Russian UDC with modifications of the Su-57 fighter


As you know, the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch received an order from the Russian Ministry of Defense for the construction of two universal landing ships for the country's Navy. Thus, information was confirmed that the main defense department did not refuse to purchase UDC-helicopter carriers after the well-known perturbations with French sanctions against the Mistrals.


We are talking about two UDC “Vladivostok” and “Sevastopol”, which were built at a French shipyard for Russia, but then, after the decision of the then president Francois Hollande, Paris did not transfer Russia to Russia. As a result, the ships were part of the Egyptian Navy, where they expect a full-fledged formation of an air wing.

And which wing is supposed to be used for the UDC, which are being built in the Crimea for the Russian Navy?

Considering the fact that the universal landing ships planned for construction in our country differ from the French Mistrals in their large size and displacement, it makes sense to raise the question of the possibility of using not only helicopters on them.

The dimensions of the future Russian universal landing ships are as follows: the greatest length - 204 m, width - 38 m, displacement - 25 thousand tons.

In this regard, such UDCs should be compared with American universal landing ships of the Wosp type. So, the greatest length of the “Americans” is 257 m, the standard displacement is about 28,5 thousand tons. At the same time, the US Navy at Uosp "Uosp" aviation wing and in the form of airplanes. We are talking about attack aircraft vertical takeoff and landing AV-8B "Harrier" II. And on the UDC U.S. Navy of a more modern project - "America" ​​- the fifth-generation F-35 fighter in modification "B" - a short take-off and landing, is also included in the wing.

Does the combat power of a universal landing ship increase the part of the wing, consisting of fighters? Of course. Fighters provide the opportunity for greater coverage of airspace over the marine and coastal zones with the participation of UDC in combat operations.

In this case, and in relation to the Russian universal landing ships, the possibility of equipping them with fighters is relevant. But the obvious problem is that today we simply do not have airplanes that could be used as aviation equipment for UDC. That wing, which patiently awaits the completion of repairs and modernization of the only domestic aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, is not suitable for operation on the UDC corny because of its characteristics.

However, this does not mean that the question raised should be immediately closed. Just the other day, the first deputy chairman of the government of the Russian Federation, Yuri Borisov, said that state tests of the fifth-generation fighter Su-57 confirm all the parameters and characteristics laid down. Borisov also recalled that the Russian Aerospace Forces ordered 76 such fighters.

If the American F-35 has a version with a deck version - the one with a short take-off, if China, without a school for creating aircraft engines, implements the J-31 program (actually in parallel with the "non-deck" J-20), then why not to consider the issue of increasing the number of modifications of the Su-57 to meet the needs of not only the airborne forces, but also the country's navy.

It is clear that so far all this is at the level of “what if ...”, but the development of the Navy fleet today it goes in a number of directions. If the Ministry of Defense decided that the fleet could not do without UDC, then the option of equipping them with suitable modifications of not only helicopters, but also their own latest (promising) fighters, cannot be ruled out. And if it has recently become fashionable to evaluate new weapons and their projects in terms of export potential, then there is an opinion that versions of Russian fifth-generation fighters for an aircraft carrier and UDC, this export potential will be high. There is an additional chance to interest partners from India, if, of course, the project is implemented for those universal ships ordered by the Ministry of Defense for our own fleet.

The option may well be implemented, given that for the same Su-57 engines of the so-called second stage are being created. And besides, one should not forget about the stock of still Soviet developments in the creation of aircraft that can be used as a means of carrier-based aviation. In any case, there is a prospect - especially against the background of the multitasking that is promised for UDC of Russian production.
Author:
Photos used:
Sukhoi Corporation
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. donavi49 27 May 2020 10: 35 New
    • 35
    • 3
    +32
    VTOL only. The question is not to take off (although a springboard is better for this), but that there is nowhere to sit. Aerofinisher will require a separate section, if they are not laid down in the project, then they will not be. Without aerofinisher, do not sit down. It’s I’m missing that to land a plane in the lapping to the island or to be killed on the island, it’s like that. In general, this is unrealistic on a conventional airplane. VTOL only.
    1. Sergey Valov 27 May 2020 10: 42 New
      • 25
      • 1
      +24
      Not only aerofinisher will be required, but also a place for aircraft basing, premises for maintenance personnel, aeronautical equipment, rooms for ammunition, fuel, spare parts, other aircraft lifts, etc. , that is, another ship will be required.
      1. donavi49 27 May 2020 10: 53 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Well, I didn’t even consider it. Just indicated a critical flaw.

        In theory, 2 aircraft can be held and raised even on the Mistral (well, except perhaps to carry out calculations). However, for this to be a light aircraft carrier (as they say in the article) - you need not only to raise, but to take planes. It is impossible to take ordinary planes without finishers. Finishers take up a lot of space, displacement, and they must first be laid in the project (or there will be a rework of the Gorshkov level in Vikra +/- as the new one to build and the latter still had certain reserves and advantages that UDC does not have).
        1. The leader of the Redskins 27 May 2020 11: 40 New
          • 28
          • 9
          +19
          Wait! I suppose that an article will soon appear on the possibility of using the Su-57 from a car carrier! And in the below-deck space, deploy a point for maintenance, repair and modernization of fifth-generation aircraft. With arithmetic calculations on the area and loading capacity!
          1. novel66 27 May 2020 13: 30 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            and it is right!!! to impose a flight deck on a car carrier - and voila !! Truman will envy
            1. NIKN 28 May 2020 11: 45 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              The prospect of equipping future Russian UDC with modifications of the Su-57 fighter

              laughing For a long time I did not read such nonsense at a seemingly stupid forum. laughing
              1. novel66 28 May 2020 11: 57 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Yes, no, chips slip ... although, of course, make a vertical line of their originally not intended for this aircraft ..
                1. NIKN 28 May 2020 11: 59 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  The author of the fifth generation is greatly exaggerated in capabilities. smile
                  1. novel66 28 May 2020 11: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Well, yes, like, it's a transformer ..
    2. Sergey Valov 27 May 2020 10: 56 New
      • 15
      • 2
      +13
      VTOL aircraft are initially flawed, they are good when they can not resist the classic, modern them aircraft. I do not deny their possible usefulness, but the circle of their rational use is already very narrow.
      1. novel66 27 May 2020 13: 31 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        if there is a confrontation with a classic aircraft carrier - right, it’s better to drown yourself right away so as not to bring such joy to the enemy
    3. figwam 27 May 2020 11: 17 New
      • 1
      • 18
      -17
      Quote: donavi49
      Aerofinisher will require a separate section, if they are not laid down in the project, then they will not be. Without aerofinisher, do not sit down.

      And if the Su-57 engines of the second stage will have a rotary nozzle, which allows to reduce the landing speed by half, then landing on the UDC is quite real.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 11: 21 New
        • 27
        • 2
        +25
        Without aerofinisher this is impossible in principle. Article - nonsense
        1. Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 11: 31 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          And unscientific.
          1. YOUR 27 May 2020 16: 05 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            And fantastic. The article says
            And which wing is supposed to be used for the UDC, which are being built in the Crimea for the Russian Navy?

            The fact is that no UDCs are being built. Only an assessment was made of the possibility of building UDC in Crimea. And will build or not is a question.
            No Su-57 are planned for the Navy. We ordered a total of 76 units, that's all.
            What is the argument about? About how good it would be if ....
            1. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 19: 38 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              And what about bookmarks now stands in Kerch now do you think?
              1. YOUR 28 May 2020 04: 20 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, what did I write about? Only in plan, the article says that they are already under construction. In addition, such expenses are not provided for in the budget of the Moscow Region.
            2. LeonidL 29 May 2020 01: 23 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Assessment of the construction ... dv, such as promising does not mean getting married.
        2. ccsr 27 May 2020 12: 34 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Without aerofinisher this is impossible in principle. Article - nonsense

          I agree, and not so much because of the air finishers, but in that part that it is impossible to convert a developed helicopter carrier into an aircraft carrier at the time of construction, if only because a completely different project is needed to create one. This means that if someone comes up with such a crazy idea, it will delay not only the deadlines for the delivery of these ships, but also create huge problems even at the construction stage, because such projects are not carried out “by eye”. Even if we get the opportunity to appear on board several aircraft with vertical take-off, from the point of view of the operational use of the ship, this will not fundamentally change anything, because the air defense systems of other ships will provide protection to the helicopter carrier.
        3. Errr 27 May 2020 12: 41 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Without aerofinisher and "in principle" lol able to regularly return to the flight deck F-35B. For this, he, in fact, was conceived with the function of vertical landing. But hemorrhoids in the form of a twin-engine VTOL probably do not need us. smile
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 13: 41 New
            • 10
            • 0
            +10
            Su-57 - not VTOL and never will be
            1. Errr 27 May 2020 15: 40 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Never, and in no way, and praise to its creators. drinks
        4. Svetlana 27 May 2020 12: 46 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          There are three stages to success:
          - this can never be
          - there is something in it
          - the only way it should be
          *****
          .. well you understand me drinks
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 13: 43 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            No problem. Can you demonstrate these three stages of success, say, in teaching a donkey (animal) the art of small talk?
            1. Svetlana 27 May 2020 14: 05 New
              • 0
              • 6
              -6
              Do not transfer human activity, the development of human thought, to the world of animals and plants. This is an anthropomorphism if you do not know such a word.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 14: 51 New
                • 10
                • 0
                +10
                That is, we have a clear example of the fact that the three stages of success voiced by you have certain limitations on their application. Simply put, there are tasks in which success at the current stage of development is a priori impossible.
                As for the stage - this is an important reservation. It can be assumed that in the distant future, humanity will achieve such successes in biology, genetics, and so on, that it will not be difficult for him to stimulate and develop the donkey brain to the level of a 7-8 year old human child, and the vocal cords to the ability to speak articulate. Then the task I set can be solved.
                So, you should be aware that teaching a donkey to speak is not the only problem that cannot be solved today. The basing of the Su-57 on the UDC is one of them :)))
            2. Avior 27 May 2020 16: 38 New
              • 8
              • 1
              +7
              Can you demonstrate these three stages of success, say, in teaching a donkey (animal) the art of small talk?

              No problem.
              smile

              - this can never be


              - there is something in it


              - the only way it should be

              smile drinks
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 16: 46 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                good laughing drinks
                It was super!
        5. Fizik M 27 May 2020 12: 54 New
          • 2
          • 7
          -5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Article - nonsense

          Yes
          but it’s quite possible to use MiGs with UDC (the installation of AF and a springboard is technically possible, and the main problem (now) is the lifts)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 13: 47 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            It is necessary to set a springboard, finishers, lifts .... In the existing displacement, this will lead to the fact that the UDC, having received several Mig, will greatly lose in the composition of the other air group, up to the inability to solve its direct tasks. We will increase the displacement of thousands to 40 tons, then again, and in the end we get Kuznetsov with a dock camera :))))
            1. timokhin-aa 27 May 2020 14: 44 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              Hangars, loading capacity of decks, stock of jet fuel, stock of TSA, deck width in the runway area, landing orientation system.

              It is technically impossible to organize all this on such a small ship as pr. 23900.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 16: 28 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                It is technically impossible to organize all this on such a small ship as pr. 23900.

                What are we talking about. As a result, we will come to a full-fledged aircraft carrier of even greater displacement than is necessary, say, for basing an air regiment, because it also has to carry
            2. Fizik M 27 May 2020 14: 44 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It is necessary to set a springboard, finishers, lifts .... In the existing displacement, this will lead to the fact that the UDC, having received several Mig, will greatly lose in the composition of the other air group, up to the inability to solve its direct tasks. We will increase the displacement of thousands to 40 tons, then again, and in the end we get Kuznetsov with a dock camera :))))

              no
              the estimates were already
              specialists
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 16: 28 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Fizik M
                no

                "no" - what?
                1. Fizik M 27 May 2020 19: 12 New
                  • 0
                  • 4
                  -4
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  "no" - what?

                  the fact that everything fits perfectly at 30
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 19: 16 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Fizik M
                    the fact that everything fits perfectly at 30

                    And how many planes will fit on a ship of 30 Kt?
                    1. Fizik M 27 May 2020 19: 40 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And how many planes will fit on a ship of 30 Kt?

                      squadron free
                      the question is not in them, but "minced" in their provision: BP, vert, people, etc.
                      1. timokhin-aa 27 May 2020 20: 12 New
                        • 6
                        • 1
                        +5
                        Hermes with Phantoms.
                        You can land, take off, almost no war.
                        Plus pitching.

                        Not take off. At amers on "America" ​​at 43000 tons, seven aircraft intermeddle in the hangar.
                      2. Fizik M 27 May 2020 20: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        You can land, take off, almost no war.

                        can
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Plus pitching.

                        there are very promising solutions and options
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Won't take off

                        with technology all the rules
                        but with the organization - tryndets
          2. Grits 30 May 2020 15: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It is necessary to set a springboard, finishers, lifts ...

            even if suddenly, with a wave of a magic wand, we have VTOL aircraft and do not need to pile up this whole crap, a lot of other problems will come out. The very first thing that comes to mind is covering the deck. Since what is suitable for helicopters is completely unsuitable for hot gases from VTOL nozzles. So, again, a remake of the project.
      2. Pete mitchell 27 May 2020 13: 30 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Article - nonsense

        I read the article and what was that? It seems I'm not drunk in the morning ...
      3. NEXUS 27 May 2020 14: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Article - nonsense

        Persecution of a horse in a vacuum.
        If the author imagined the propeller to be attached to the SU-57, then yes, most likely, even for sure. wassat
    4. bayard 28 May 2020 17: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: figvam
      And if the Su-57 engines of the second stage will have a rotary nozzle, which allows to reduce the landing speed by half, then landing on the UDC is quite real.

      Only vertically - to the "tail" lol
      Then let it take off in the same way - HOW ROCKET! fellow
      And let it also be stored - vertically - will enter more. yes

      The engine of the second stage can EVERYTHING. wink
    5. LeonidL 29 May 2020 01: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If my grandmother had eggs, then she would become a grandfather.
  2. svp67 27 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    VTOL only.

    But this will not be any modification, but a completely new plane. And it would be better to create it either from scratch, or at the same time with the new 5th generation light attack aircraft
  3. knn54 27 May 2020 12: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The Yankees:
    1. Airborne assault helicopter carrier.
    2. Landing helicopter ship dock.
    3. Landing transport dock (San Antonio).
    4. Landing helicopter ship dock.
    "Mistral" can be attributed to the second group. But the Russian project UDC "Surf" has artillery weapons, air defense systems and electronic warfare systems.
    The project of UDC "Kherson" can be attributed to the first group. But again, the gun mount and anti-aircraft missile system gives an advantage when landing over the American and its counterparts.
    You need to DECIDE what you need. You do not need an expensive unfinished building.
    1. Avior 27 May 2020 17: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      But then again the gun mount ...

      according to their ideas, the UDC carry out an over-the-horizon landing and are not exposed to the fire of enemy coastal assets. It’s not worth fencing the garden to go close to the shore of such an expensive ship.
      So they need an artillery mount to support the landing unless on occasion.
  4. Ka-52 27 May 2020 13: 42 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    VTOL only. The question is not to take off (although a springboard is better for this), but that there is nowhere to sit.

    when designing it is worth dancing from the stove. Before talking about finishers and VTOL aircraft, it is worth noting that the take-off and landing deck must structurally withstand the load of an airplane taking off and landing. And this is 3 times higher than a helicopter even in rest weight. And only then finishers and stabilizers pitching and hangars BOS and other and other
  5. Shelest2000 27 May 2020 18: 09 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    As an option supersonic Yak-141. True, they are no longer there, but the documentation, for sure, remains. With modern technology it is quite possible to surpass the development of the 80-90s.
    1. Servisinzhener 27 May 2020 20: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A maximum of something peeping from this documentation. But in fact, the creation of a new aircraft has little with the Yak-141.
      1. Grits 30 May 2020 15: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Servisinzhener
        A maximum of something peeping from this documentation. But in fact, the creation of a new aircraft has little with the Yak-141.

        And what prevents to create the same one? Changing only avionics and weapons.
  6. bayard 28 May 2020 17: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    In general, this is unrealistic on a conventional airplane. VTOL only.

    I don’t understand what these fantasies are for, if Yakovlev Design Bureau is already 4 - 5 years old and is thus puzzled by VTOL. And probably based on the engine of the second stage - "Product-30". They hit a good vertical line, they have experience in designing the American F-35 (a group of design bureaus worked in the USA under an intergovernmental agreement). I think by the middle / end of the decade we will see the result of their work. Accurate to the delivery of the head UDC.
    In the meantime, all the work is classified and no information about the look of the future VTOL aircraft has leaked. Just what the work is on.
    And fantasize about making a heavy 2-engine fighter vertical belay ... it's not even funny. The author did not even bother to get acquainted with the topic ...
    It's sad for VO ... it's still not Murzilka. recourse

    The other side of this issue is the number of proposed VTOL aircraft for the procurement of the Moscow Region.
    It is important .
    A small series does not justify the cost of developing and launching production. The cost of operation will be extremely high, and the operation itself is extremely difficult ... the consequences of a small series.
    That is, if such an aircraft is being created, then there should be seriously more than 2 universal landing ships with a flight deck. If objectively, then they need about six - two each in the Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet and Black Sea Fleet. And a double air wing for each (the second part on the shore for substitution or amplification).
    Such aircraft (VTOL) could be useful for service (carrying a DB) on the islands of the Kuril Ridge, where it is not possible to organize a normal airfield, to provide air defense and counter anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy in our "bastion" - the base of the SSBN in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. And the reflection of airborne treacherous movements from the outside of the Kuril ridge, as well as aerial reconnaissance.

    I repeat: the adoption of such VTOL aircraft is justified only if their number is planned at least 200 pieces. , and since it doesn’t fit so much on UDC, you need to think about using them in VKS. Let's say in those places and cases where it is not possible to have normal airfields, and it is necessary to provide air defense and air cover.
    hi
    1. Grits 30 May 2020 15: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bayard
      Yakovlev Design Bureau has already been confused by VTOL for 4 - 5 years. And probably based on the engine of the second stage - "Product-30". They hit a good vertical line, they have experience in designing the American F-35 (a group of design bureaus worked in the USA under an intergovernmental agreement). I think by the middle / end of the decade we will see the result of their work. Accurate to the delivery of the head UDC.

      If this were so, then on the Internet, the discussion of this aircraft would have been going on for 10 years no less, and more abruptly, than Almaty. So, most likely, these are just dreams. Though pleasant.
      1. bayard 30 May 2020 16: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        All these discussions at VO have been more than once. And quite stormy.
        The information that Yakovleva Design Bureau received an order “to study the issue of creating an VTOL aircraft” came from Putin’s lips in news channels around 2015/16. Last year, there were several reports that such work was underway (and against this background, the discussion of "need-to-use" and what kind of media should such Pepelians should be resumed).
        But passions gradually subsided ... Fantasy about the "great accomplishments" of desire and enthusiasm among the people diminished ... This is good.
        I reminded about it (VTOL) because I myself participated in the discussion of the appearance of a promising VTOL and the topic is close to me.
        1. Grits 31 May 2020 02: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: bayard
          I reminded about it (VTOL) because I myself participated in the discussion of the appearance of a promising VTOL and the topic is close to me.

          Well then, believe you.
  7. Grits 30 May 2020 15: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: donavi49
    VTOL only.

    Which are not. No in iron. But there are in the drawings.
    They constantly say, they say, funds are needed for development and other research and development projects. Sorry, friends, why do you need to develop something if everything has already been developed for a long time? Our Soviet ancestors created the beautiful VTOL Yak-141. Did he lose relevance? I think it will be no worse than Sea Harrier, which Americans still use. E if you add him new avionics and new technologies and materials, then he will give a head start.
    So do not invent a bicycle - unpack the drawings, dear aircraft designers and go for it!
  • Mavrikiy 27 May 2020 10: 42 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    increase the number of modifications of the Su-57 to meet the needs of not only the airborne forces, but also the country's navy.
    Well, it's hard to say what .... and even more so to do request searchlights.
  • rocket757 27 May 2020 10: 47 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The prospect of equipping future ......

    Oh what a fortune-telling!
  • Slon1978 27 May 2020 10: 50 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    In what kind of parallel reality, according to the author, is equipping the Russian UDC with GDP aircraft “relevant”? The very concept of using the armed forces of Russia casts doubt on the relevance of even aircraft carriers. But if you already project force and engage in expeditionary operations, then it is better to build a new full-sized aircraft carrier, and not engage in nonsense, developing an under-plane of GDP. Projecting power by plane GDP is just to make Americans laugh. Any aircraft of GDP has a depressing performance characteristics compared to a conventional fighter, is catastrophically expensive, its development and testing are associated with an increased number of accidents. And the most incomprehensible - why is it needed?
    1. ZAV69 27 May 2020 12: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Slon1978
      learn to build a new full-sized aircraft carrier,

      You don’t have to go so far, blow dust off the drawings of Ulyanovsk, only put new reactors in it, like on the latest icebreakers. Only our fathers commanders have not yet decided whether we need an aircraft carrier, and if necessary, why
  • Sergey Valov 27 May 2020 10: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “Not only the airborne forces, but also the country's navy” - navy aviation is not only carrier-based aviation.
  • rosomaha 27 May 2020 10: 54 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    And if you revive the Yak141 project, but with modern technology and the Su57 glider? For UDC, only a short take-off and vertical flight will definitely fit when landing. In general, if you think about it ... we would bring the UDC to the mind first. And if everything works out, then design the 2 UDC series already taking into account the basing of the air wing. Meanwhile, develop a full-fledged vertical IFI. If the UDC will be late - they can be oriented to the sea aviation to support the marines. Well, vertical lines would be useful in remote garrisons, on the islands .. where there is limited runway creation.
    1. donavi49 27 May 2020 11: 03 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      It is only on paper easy. In fact, you need to create a new plane. The engine is not produced and probably will not work out, and today it is already obsolete technology. We need a global modernization (in fact, the creation of the product anew, under the current technical capabilities of the industry) or the creation of a new installation for VTOL based on a 5th generation, 2nd stage engine.

      Glider Yaka was not just, but calculated for VTOL and modes. Glider Su-57 is not just, but it is calculated specifically for the Su-57 and its modes. For VTOL, you need to make your own glider, for example, using their regimes using Su-57 technologies. But the work must be done anew.

      Well, then there further into the forest, all over again. Electronics again (especially since there are one third of the aircraft in Ukraine and the former Soviet republics for components), all kinds of drives are all over again.

      Yes, and there is no sense in clinging to the Yak-141. Equipment, there is no serial plant for it. With the restoration of the documentation and updating it (again, which thread the drive is no longer available, but you can find another, but it has different parameters, well, etc.) - there will also be problems. As a result, an airplane of the 90s with point upgrades like the MiG-29SMT thread will be released, but in time it is not much faster and not much cheaper than doing the 5th generation of VTOL aircraft from scratch and completely different basic capabilities.
      1. Slon1978 27 May 2020 11: 13 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        One gets the impression that the author does not understand what he is writing about. Perhaps he thinks that the only thing is to put on the upper deck of the UDC the marking of the runway and load the suitable plane with the GDP. And laments that there is no such plane. There is no understanding that this is a completely new ship, only the development of the technical specifications for it will take good if 1 year, then design is good if 3 years, then construction is good if 10 years. And it certainly won’t work with the SVPP - the concept of such an aircraft is very emergency — there will be a shift in timelines. But no one has canceled the introduction of changes to the ship’s technical specifications - it’s common with the advent of new navigation equipment, weapons, and a component base. Total 25 years at best and the budget is truly unlimited. And most importantly - why would such a plane and ship be needed?
      2. rosomaha 27 May 2020 11: 17 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        how much I comment on the article .. and always, when I write "to take something old and combine with something new" - see how "why pull the old." I put other meaning into my words. Old practices are taken as a basis and pulled into the future, changing to meet new requirements .. new technologies and materials. In fact, a new product is obtained, but with a pedigree. In this case, you correctly revealed the essence - you need a new plane. But you can, after all, combine the efforts of 2 KB, some have experience in vertical lines, others have the experience of modern combat aircraft .. there is avionics, there is an engine .. there is cooperation of allies. Completely rework all the available information and developments for the new requirements and give tasks to subcontractors for new elements and systems. Plus use the available info on F-35B .. copy ideas from other countries. The main result is to create, in a short period of time, a full-fledged combat apparatus with a chorus of operational indicators and fighting mi-mi. Yes, it will be a new aircraft, but not created from scratch.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 May 2020 11: 25 New
          • 7
          • 2
          +5
          And they have already explained to you that this is impossible and why. The aircraft will have to be created from scratch. If this is not clear to you, try redesigning the tube television so that you get an LCD monitor
          1. Servisinzhener 27 May 2020 21: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            With this alteration, only part of the structural diagram of these two devices will be common. laughing
        2. Alexey RA 27 May 2020 14: 36 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: rosomaha
          Old practices are taken as a basis and pulled into the future, changing to meet new requirements .. new technologies and materials.

          And it turns out that everything needs to be designed and calculated again. Because most of the factories whose products the aircraft was designed to have died a long time ago. And survivors for three decades have long changed the range of products. And old calculations, drawings and specifications can be sent to the scrap - you need to consider the plane for new materials, for a new engine, for a new avionics and avionics.
          What is the use of the scheme and installation drawing of some block KN154561-7125 / U2N, if the same Svetlana has long been dead, and the components have long been replaced by more modern ones. In general, this block is not needed in the new scheme - its functions are performed, among others, by a single block POB8741-654 / KTU. So in its place you can install something else, but this “other” has different dimensions, and you need to recalculate the attachment points - and so on ...
    2. Zaurbek 1 June 2020 07: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The VTOL aircraft has a different weight distribution and, accordingly, a different glider and, accordingly, a different arrangement of nozzles (and lifting engines).
  • Avior 27 May 2020 11: 24 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The author, in my opinion, does not clearly imagine which aircraft he is talking about, either VTOL aircraft or horizontal landing.
    Both options are unrealizable anyway, however, there are no aerofinishes there and there will not be, and from a twin-engine aircraft, SVVP can only be done theoretically
  • GMM
    GMM 27 May 2020 11: 36 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    And how can one seriously discuss the application of what is not yet on what is not even laid down?
  • Carnifexx 27 May 2020 11: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Funny article, have fun.
    1. an aerofinisher is needed to land a carrier-based fighter, and this is a UDC processing
    2. The Su-57 is a heavy fighter, so that such a take-off not with half-empty tanks and / or without weapons needs a catapult, and this is if the finisher is done. With a catapult and an aerofinisher, this is not a UDC but an aircraft carrier.
    3. For UDCs, airplanes with VTOL aircraft are used for a reason, and the Su-57 does not have such capabilities, a new aircraft is needed. A new aircraft with VTOL is a serious challenge, and not just make it, but achieve acceptable reliability in operation.
  • Comrade Michael 27 May 2020 12: 14 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    It would be great to immediately provide the airborne landing support. It is necessary to develop a modern VTOL aircraft, which will be good on land. As a former helicopter builder, I see a good future behind them.
  • Zaurbek 27 May 2020 12: 35 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    And here is the "deck version"? Here we need an analogue of the F35V ... which China does not have. We have developments on the Yak141, which did not become serial. In fact, there is a turbojet engine with a deflectable grade and theoretically, you can try to recreate it at a new level .... There is no clear idea about a lifting engine
    ....
    1. Servisinzhener 27 May 2020 22: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Regarding the lifting and use of old documentation, for example, on the Yak-141. Not much can be gleaned from this documentation. Perhaps a general layout or something on the little things. Make a lift-march turbofan engine in the image of the F-35B based on the second stage engine and R79V-300. But there can be no talk of complete reproduction. Because such a temporary gap leads to the fact that the available materials and details are coordinated. Equipment in the production. These changes make the production of old drawings almost impossible. For example, an avionics which previously required a huge amount of some kind of KT312, 1533ID4, K573RF21 with the appropriate weight and size is now replacing a board based on K1986BE91T the size of half a notebook sheet. And this means at least the weight distribution of the aircraft will have to be counted. Details from the radio market, carefully stolen in the mid-eighties by “Uncle Vasya” during internship at the spare parts factory, will not work here. We need new ones with unexpired shelf life, a manufacturer's warranty and stored in appropriate conditions. And so on throughout the plane. On each drawing there will be several such plugs. And questions why this is done so, and not otherwise. Which is already no one to ask.

      All of the above can serve as the answer to all such themes of revival. Like the resumption of the Energy-Buran program or why the Americans will not build Saturn-5 because there are drawings for both. By the way, the Americans recently had such a story with nuclear warheads for missiles. During routine maintenance, replacement of airgel elements is required. In due time it was let out by one small firm. No one thought about the fact that in three decades they will extend the life of these warheads. And this airgel was produced exactly as much as was needed for the entire planned life. And the technology for producing an airgel with exactly such properties was for the most part in the head of the owner of the company. The owner died many years ago, the business was sold. There was almost no documentation and people who worked and had to deal with the development again.
      1. Zaurbek 27 May 2020 23: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        With money, of course, this would give impetus to the aircraft industry
  • Lookass 27 May 2020 13: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Planes for such a ship?

    It would be better to equip éé. drones like Mig Skat
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Avior 27 May 2020 13: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    If there will be an engine of the second stage, then you can try to make VTOL simultaneously with a light single-engine fighter based on this engine.
    Such an aircraft could have some success at an inexpensive price,
    provided that the engine, avionics, etc. will be based on the Su-57, and they are really operational and show good performance.
    Making a single-engine pure VTOL aircraft will be noticeably more expensive, the plane is niche, and buyers for it except Indians are not visible. well, the Chinese will still buy as a copy. But on the regular version, in principle, there may still be buyers.
    More batch - less cost.
    1. Zaurbek 28 May 2020 11: 51 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Most importantly, what is our demand for VTOL? It is unlikely that it will be possible to make a simple and cheap version of the VTOL aircraft of a light single-engine fighter. And to invest heavily in unnecessary or needed in the amount of 10-20-30-40 cars is a dubious occupation.
      1. Avior 28 May 2020 12: 57 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        That is why I proposed combining the development of a single-engine VTOL and the conventional one, starting with SVVP and then simplifying it - remove the lift fan (put an additional tank instead, for example) and redo the nozzle.
        Demand for such a pair of aircraft will be much higher.
        SVVMakes sense if at least a hundred are definitely bought.
        But keep in mind, pieces of 30-40 will only go under Kuznetsov.
        1. Zaurbek 1 June 2020 07: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is not a good option ... the weight distribution is different for VTOL aircraft and a conventional fighter. And as a result, the flight characteristics of a light fighter can be affected. But the cabin, avionics, some kind of system can be unified. But here, God forbid, just get to the light fighter. And in terms of VTOL aircraft, I believe that it is better to cut a normal aircraft carrier with normal carrier-based fighters.
  • rotkiv04 27 May 2020 14: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Why fence this garden, if you need aviation, then you need to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier
  • Bez 310 27 May 2020 14: 08 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    In principle, it is very modern - to talk about what is not, and most likely, will never. And the commentators are good - they comment without stopping, as if they were being paid for it. Stop how much you can produce all this nonsense!
  • Polente the Wanderer 27 May 2020 14: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    First, create and launch at least 50 Su-57s with engines of 2 stages, and then you can talk about an airplane for UDC. If the plane crashes onto the helicopter carrier itself, then these losses will be disproportionate when just an airplane crashes. At our pace of building at least airplanes, even ships, you can just fantasize
  • Maks1995 27 May 2020 15: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But there are none of them yet, so everything is from the evil one.
  • Dart2027 27 May 2020 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But this is not necessary. Otherwise, you get another hybrid of a hedgehog and a snake.
  • Servisinzhener 27 May 2020 21: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I hope none of the decision makers come up with this idea. Because such a "brilliant" idea will bury both the Su-57 and the UDC. Even if in some magical way we had the Yak-141 or if the Yak-38 survived, the ship would still have to be redone. Strengthen the flight deck so that it can withstand the "exhaust" of the engines. Extra space for fuel a plane in vertical take-off mode spends a lot of it. And such alterations immediately attract many other elements. And the length of documentation on such projects is measured in kilometers. In fact, all this would mean the creation of a new ship. With the Su-57 the same story. It’s easier and faster to make VTOL from scratch than to remodel the finished one.
  • Pandiurin 27 May 2020 23: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An author with a very progressive fantasy.
    I want to throw an idea for the next article. You can use conventional fighters, but instead of a springboard, the ship must be equipped with vertical take-off, a powerful mega fan in the center of the deck to create a vertical jet. In a stream of air, we throw the plane 150-250 meters upwards, then it goes into the horizon on fazazh. In short, everything is very simple. Soft landing with such a gadget can be a problem. It is necessary to finalize.
  • Elephant 28 May 2020 11: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In order to implement such a project with us, it is necessary to make the SU-57 single-engine with a rotary nozzle, like the F-35V. And it should be a completely different machine with smaller dimensions and weight, and hence the cost. Something makes me think that the Americans are not stupid at all - they all figured a step forward in creating their own machine, unlike some ...
  • Comrade Michael 28 May 2020 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    How many funny arguments are there ...) The most important thing is that there is not a single specialist left who can design VTOL ... Will you make them on a 3D printer? There are no specialists in the dynamics and aerodynamics of the flight of such aircraft, the design of components and assemblies. The last books on VTOL design theory of our authors or translated foreign ones when we were released? There were few specialists in this area even in Soviet times. And this task is full of hidden difficulties and extraordinary .... And yes, we are all masters to talk .... Without sensible people, no heap of drawings and calculations of old (and new stolen) will be useful to anyone.
  • Bersaglieri 28 May 2020 13: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Su-57? Perhaps, in principle: the deck is short. Now, if VTOL will develop or convertiplanes, the matter is different. But for now, it’s better to hang on the Ka-52K R-74 other means of "medium-long range" - the benefit of the radar is
  • Vladimir1155 28 May 2020 15: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    any unnecessary thing like udk can be used for even more unnecessary svvp, and in the meantime, the whole navy is not operational in principle, because there are no minesweepers and coastal aviation
  • Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 16: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I never cease to be surprised at stupidity. laughing