Military Review

TAVKR project 1143 and SSVP Yak-38 - "the maximum possible"

241

In the articles published by "Voennoye Obozreniye" by Alexander Timokhin “Yak-41 is against further development of Yak-38. Lesson from the past " и "Aircraft-carrying cruisers and Yak-38: retrospective analysis and lessons" far from all theses can be agreed. This in no way means that their author should be "obstructed" and "brought to the end of the pier", because when discussing complex technical issues (and even more tactical and operational) "full consensus" is possible only in one place - in the cemetery. And military-technical discussions are undoubtedly a necessary and extremely useful matter (provided they are of a decent level).


If the thesis about the complexity and duration of the creation and development of "verticals" is absolutely correct:

38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the Yak-25M was put into service. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years. This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state. Working normally aviation industry, practically without "effective managers" ... with the simplest radio-electronic equipment ... A reason to think for all fans of "vertical".

One cannot agree with the opinion about the need for a "transitional vertical" Yak-39:

“Work on the future Yak-41 was going on with a serious lag behind schedule. It was supposed to take off back in 1982, but it didn't. Everything indicated that a more high-tech and complex supersonic VTOL aircraft would be created no less than a simple Yak-38. In this case, insurance is required in the form of a Yak-39. But, the main thing is that while there are "dances" with VTOL aircraft, there will be no decent number of new carriers for it. "

The situation is more complicated in terms of carriers. On the one hand, the best thing that could be done with the Project 1143 "Kievs" was their modernization (during the middle repair) in the "Vikromaditya" (that is, the "maximum normal" aircraft carrier with the MiG-29K), the design of which was made even under the USSR.


On the other hand, the question arose of the possibilities of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry of the USSR. A huge bias towards shipbuilding by the early 80s. it was already clear that it was planned to build powerful shipbuilding and ship repair facilities (with the advanced development of the latter).

However, plans in the USSR too often and significantly differed from reality. In these conditions, it is far from the fact that all 1143 would have received a deep "aircraft carrier" modernization. In this case, the Yak-41 was unambiguously necessary (despite the fact that this aircraft received meaning only as an interspecies one, and for the Air Force there was a meaning in it).

However, all these theorizing make sense only when taking into account military-political factors and the real situation with military R&D in the USSR. And these were very difficult and problematic situations.

The arrival of President Reagan at the White House sparked a sharp escalation in the Cold War confrontation. The third world war began to be viewed as "quite probable" (and in the "near future"). For those who did not find this time, there is an opportunity to "feel" the events of that era, such as "the bombing will begin in 5 minutes." This was Reagan's typical "joke" on August 11, 1984, before Saturday's radio address to Americans:

“My compatriots are Americans,

I am glad to inform you today,

that he signed a decree declaring Russia outlawed for eternity.

The bombing will begin in five minutes. "

And that was at the time

"Almost in the order of things."

And in this acute military-political situation, the key factor was the urgent bringing of the available forces and means to really combat-ready levels, their modernization as soon as possible, which ensured a real increase in efficiency and the ability to solve tasks as intended. The issue of eliminating the most acute problems of the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces and the Navy was extremely acute.

For fleet problem number 1 was air cover from air attack and a special case of this threat - the "Harpoon factor" (a new stealthy anti-ship missile system of the US and NATO Navy, capable of flying to a target at a height of several meters above the water).

"Harpoons" on the suspension of the anti-submarine "Orion" and the strategic B-52.

Special exercises carried out in the late 70s showed that the USSR Navy did not actually have any effective means against such a threat. The measures taken raise a number of questions (on which, in an amicable way, it would be worth writing a separate article with an analysis of what was happening), and most importantly, they were fully implemented only for new air defense systems and new ships. The "Harpoon problem" for most of the naval staff remained extremely acute throughout the 80s.

This was superimposed on a more long-term and large-scale problem - the provision of air defense of ship formations from enemy air raids. Coastal aviation, in any way effectively, was not capable of solving this problem (not to mention “divided control”, since it did not belong to the Navy, but to “another department” - the air defense forces).

In this situation, the Navy in the early 80-ies had three TAVKR type "Kiev".

The episode is little-known, but scandalous enough. When in 1981, at an organizational and mobilization meeting in Leningrad, the commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Spiridonov E.N. "Effectively solved the problem", "what to do" 1143 (so that the enemy does not sink them immediately), placing them "to strengthen the air defense" of naval bases (in fact, he refused to withdraw to the sea, leaving under cover of coastal air defense systems and interceptors).

Yes, the project 1143 itself is very controversial. This is to put it mildly. However, its main problem was the carrier-based aircraft, the Yak-38 (M), with extremely weak armament and range and very limited maneuverability.

Was it possible to do "something"? With the Yak-38 and TAVKR 1143 in those specific conditions, what would make it possible for a real, and most importantly effective participation of the TAKR and Yak-38 in a possible war?

And there were such opportunities.

Mastering the TAVKR and its air group


Historian of naval aviation of the Navy, Colonel A.M. Artemiev:

“Before the march, the aircraft carrier“ Kiev ”prepared and approved a private instruction for the production of flights. When it was drawn up, they proceeded from the position developed by the Aviation Headquarters of the Navy, which (after a long, tedious and humiliating procedure of coordination with the departments and directorates of the General Staff of the Navy, which took more than a year) was approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy

The regulation introduced the concept of "ship aviation complex", which included: aircraft and helicopters with their equipment and weapons; naval aircraft equipment (flight deck, hangar, deck technical equipment for LAC takeoff and landing and their transportation on the ship).

On the aircraft carrier, the post of deputy ship commander for aviation was envisaged. He was subordinate to the commander of the ship and was the direct superior for the personnel of the aviation combat unit, the flight control group and the combat control of aviation at the command post. He coordinated the activities of the personnel of the warhead and specialists of the leadership and combat control groups.

The commander of the aviation group (the commander of the aviation regiment) supervised the preparation of aircraft crews for flights and personally checked their readiness. He was the direct superior of all personnel and was responsible for flight safety.

A launch command post, a control tower or a flagship was intended to control flights on the ship. "

Mastering TAVKR and Yak-38

During the first combat service of the TAVKR "Kiev" (to the Mediterranean Sea and back) in the period from December 15, 1978 to March 28, 1979, 355 Yak-38 flights were performed.

The International Defense Review magazine analyzed the takeoff technique of the Yak-38:

“During the campaign“ Kiev ”from the Black Sea to Murmansk flew simultaneously no more than two planes. Takeoff technique is common, but execution is rather cautious ...

Often for this, the speed of the ship was reduced to 4 knots (7 km / h). Before vertical takeoff, three engines were started and a low thrust test was performed. The takeoff was carried out vertically and very steadily up to a height of 18-24 m above the deck, after which the transition to horizontal flight was made. The acceleration was small, and the entire transition to aerodynamic flight took about 1,5 minutes after the vertical takeoff itself.

The usual stable landing on deck was also preceded by a long transient regime.

On Kiev, the complete lack of experience in deck operation, discipline and safety equipment is also striking.

In terms of discipline, it appears that factory personnel were still on board and that the crew were not aware of the dangers involved in operating aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

In terms of security, there was a lack of conventional Western equipment such as fire pumps, asbestos coveralls, bulldozers and even headphones.

There is no doubt that these shortcomings will be eliminated during the next campaigns of "Kiev".

However, with the transition to the Pacific Fleet in 1979, the TAVKR "Minsk" the number of flights significantly decreased - to 253 (with only 50 flight hours flying!) Due to the revealed problems of the Yak-38 in high temperatures.

The resolution of the Council of Ministers Commission on Military-Industrial Issues on the deep modernization of the Yak-38 aircraft was issued on March 27, 1981, but only the next year the OKB began to develop the Yak-38M aircraft.

Nevertheless, the Navy (and the Naval Aviation) made great efforts to master the aircraft (including takeoff with a short takeoff run for the Yak-38M). Colonel A.M. Artemiev:

“At the beginning of 1983, at a meeting of the Military Council of the Navy, the Commander of Naval Aviation, Colonel-General of Aviation G.A. Kuznetsov reported that since October 6, 1976, Yak-38 aircraft have completed 32 flights.

But he focused on the shortcomings of the aircraft:

low thrust-to-weight ratio, lack of radar;

unsatisfactory longitudinal balancing in case of engine thrust mismatch and disruption of their stable operation due to exhaust gases entering the inlet;

high specific fuel consumption and low aerodynamic quality of the supersonic wing, which does not allow increasing the tactical radius;

short range of missiles with radio command guidance system;

small power reserves of reactive control and directional stability in the modes of vertical takeoff and landing;

inability to perform flights during icing;

high level of vibrations, thermal and acoustic loads,

as well as insufficient operational adaptability.

On October 17, 1983, the new aircraft carrier "Novorossiysk" with an escort left the Kola Bay. And on February 27, 1984 he arrived in Vladivostok. During the cruise, the Yak-38 and Yak-38U made about 600 flights (that is, twice the number of the "Minsk" crossing) with a total flight time of about 300 hours (six times more than the "Minsk"), including 120 takeoffs from short run.

However, all this intensive training focused on the use of the Yak-38 (M) primarily as a carrier-based attack aircraft.

The composition of the armament of the Yak-38 (M) aircraft.

The main armament: blocks NURS, suspended cannon containers and radio command UR X-23.

After the Yak-38M, the design of the next modification of the VTOL aircraft began - the Yak-39 (increased wing, new engines and radar).

However, the development was stopped at the stage of a technical proposal, the commission's comments on it indicated:

"The combat capabilities of the Yak-39 as a fighter are limited and provide a solution to the problem of hitting only single subsonic air targets not covered by fighter aircraft."

Taking into account the fact that full-scale work was already underway on normal deck interceptors, and with the obvious duration of work on the Yak-39 project (especially taking into account more powerful engines and the installation of an armament complex with a radar), the apparent reluctance of the Yak-39 Naval Aviation becomes understandable.

“In the meantime, the patience of the rather flexible flight crew was running out.

On December 23, 1987, pilots of the Pacific Fleet Air Force sent a letter to the Party Control Committee under the Central Committee of the CPSU.

It was a document with a [very low - MK] rating for the Yak-38.

Proposals of approximately the same content were repeatedly sent to the Minaviaprom back in 1983. ”

It seems that "everything is clear and understandable."

Apart from missed opportunities.

Effective application model


On January 1, 1988, there were about 150 Yak-38s in the aviation of the Navy (of which 25 Yak-38U). That is, all 4 TAVKRs could be equipped with Yak-38 (M) air groups with a strength close to the maximum possible, in terms of basing conditions and restrictions on training for flights and use.

At the same time, the Navy did not have any other carrier-based aircraft.

Taking into account the real conditions of application, issue No. 1 of the TAVRK air group was to give the ability to realistically solve air defense problems of a ship formation (including repelling the strikes of anti-ship missile carriers). Of course, this raised the issue of air battles with enemy aircraft (including such highly maneuverable fighters as the F-15 and F-16). Definitely, radar was needed for all-weather performance and such weapon and tactics that could compensate for the shortcomings of the Yak-38's maneuverability.

Placing a powerful radar station (which was planned for the Yak-39) did not solve the problem, since the lack of the aircraft's payload "cut" the ammunition to an unacceptably low level. With a pair of "long-range" missiles you can't "fight" much.

However, the solution here was the interaction of deck interceptors with the ship and helicopters, ensuring their guidance to high-altitude targets according to the powerful radars of the ship, and to low-flying targets - the radars of helicopters.

And such experiments were carried out - at the Pacific Fleet under Emil Spiridonov. The effectiveness of the carriers of the "Success" radar system (Tu-95RTs and Ka-25Ts) when working on low-flying air targets turned out to be very high.

Helicopters TAVKR: Ka-25PL and Ka-25Ts.

However, the initiator of this work died together with Spiridonov in the Tu-104 of the Comflot in 1981, and no one else returned to this topic in the Navy and Naval Aviation.

The presence of external target designation and guidance made it possible to drastically reduce the requirements for the radar (practically to the level of a "radio sight") and reduce its mass (to the real one according to the permissible conditions of placement on the Yak-38).

For example, the mass of the smallest "fighter radar" in the USSR - "Sapphire-21M" (RP-22SMA) was just over 200 kg. Theoretically, its placement on the Yak-38 during the modernization was possible, but "at the limit" and with a significant limitation of the combat load and radius.

In the situation with military R&D, no one would specifically develop a "small radar" for the Yak-38 (because it just took years to go through the cumbersome chain of coordination and planning just to start development work), there were no "small firms" then.

However, the necessary technical groundwork was available, and the serial one.

We are talking about the seeker (GOS) anti-ship missiles, some of which had technical parameters close to the necessary (especially the high-frequency channel GOS "Moskit" should be noted).

Radar "Sapphire-21M" (above) and GOS anti-ship missiles P-6 and "Amethyst" (below).

Yes, the requirements for the airborne radar and the seeker of the anti-ship missile system are different, including in terms of resource and a number of other parameters.

However, the question in the situation is “a war on the doorstep”. And it is precisely the emergency measures that are needed to quickly and realistically increase the combat effectiveness of “what is” (and especially the urgent elimination of the most serious shortcomings).

Here it is appropriate to recall a completely different historical an example from the Korean War about the creation of our first radiation warning stations:

“Having addressed on command, Lieutenant Matskevich did not meet with understanding from the leadership of the research institute (well, what kind of device is the size of a pack of cigarettes, besides, the Americans don't have such a thing).

After that he talked about this topic with G.T. Beregov, at that time a tester of MiGs at the Air Force Research Institute.

Georgy Timofeevich, through his colleague, S.A. Mikoyan, nephew of the chief designer of MIGs A.I. Mikoyan, arranged a meeting with him. The chief designer, assessed the lieutenant's proposal and mentioned it at the next report of I.V. Stalin, and he ordered to test the device in a combat situation.

At that time, V. Matskevich had developed only a schematic diagram. With the help of NII-108 A.G. Rapoport (later Chief Designer of space-based electronic surveillance equipment) and military representative A.I. Strelkova the necessary documentation was issued and an installation batch of 10 products was manufactured.

The dimensions of the receiver are smaller than the telephone set, which made it possible to mount it on the MIG-15 fighter plane without any problems.


The receiver was named "Siren".

Lieutenant Matskevich was sent to China to conduct military tests.

The receiver received the most positive feedback from the pilots.

Matskevich was awarded the title of captain (through the title).

Stalin ordered to make 3 receivers within 500 months. At a meeting with Bulganin, Stalin's task was brought to the attention of the directors of enterprises.

However, they considered its implementation impossible, since, in their opinion, only the preparation of production required at least two years.
However, the director NII-108 (now TsNIRTI) A. Berg took on this task, subject to a shift to the right of the timing of the current work.
Link.

I would like to note that Axel Berg was not just a prominent Russian scientist, but also a very strong practitioner, a former commander of a submarine.

In the conditions of extremely bureaucratic nature of conventional R&D, technically, in a short time, work on equipping deck "vertical units" with small radars could only be carried out "informally". For example, by ordering a series of GOS for research work (R&D), under the "pretext", for example, "research of GOS issues in the group use of anti-ship missiles in electronic warfare conditions", after which the resulting materiel should be finalized "for an aircraft" in agreement with its developer.

It should be noted that in the same Air Force, the approach to the modernization and implementation of a new one was much more adequate than in the Navy, an example of which is the massive MiG-23, modified at repair plants according to the "thousandth bulletin" to a completely modern MLD level, with a sharp increase in their combat capability against new fighters of the US Air Force.

A "bunch" powerful radar for long-range target designation (from a ship or a helicopter) and a "small" radar of the interceptor itself (in fact, a "radio sight") ensured quite effective use of "verticals" in difficult hydrometeorological conditions (within the appropriate limits) and at night.

However, the problem was no less acute:

"How to shoot down enemy planes?"

Given the strict payload restrictions, the use of missiles such as the R-24 and R-27 was out of the question. However, we had a very effective technical and tactical solution - the R-73 missiles with a thermal seeker and a helmet-mounted target designation system, which made it possible to drastically reduce the requirements for the aircraft's maneuverable characteristics.

Four R-73s with launching devices are about 600 kg on aircraft suspensions, which is a little too much for the Yak-38 (when working at full radius), but quite realistic.

Nominally, the R-73 was not considered at all for the "verikalka" as its weapon, for use on air targets were the R-60 (M) with half the mass. However, the R-60M had an extremely small (and often insufficient for reliable target destruction) warhead, short range and insufficient capture range (especially in the front hemisphere of the target). That is, for real combat conditions, the effectiveness is an order of magnitude lower than the P-73.

The R-73 went into mass production in the second half of the 80s, but before that it was quite possible to use the R-60M, the main thing was the installation of a helmet-mounted target designation system (NTSU) on the aircraft.

Again, only the NCU could compensate for the extremely inadequate maneuverability of the Yak-38 in battle against normal fighters, providing it with a very real chance of victory (including through the use of R-73 missiles in the front hemisphere of the target).

The enemy had no counterparts in the 80s, and it was a very real and very effective trump card in air battles.

Provided that it will be possible to survive after the attack by "radar" long-range missiles AIM-7M Sparrow. And there was only one means for the Yak-38 - modern and effective electronic warfare.

Formally, the EW on the Yak-38 was "there" ("Lilac-I" or "Carnation"), but the question was not "availability", but real efficiency. First of all, the possibility of a sharp decrease in the likelihood of hitting an AIM-7M Sparrow UR aircraft.

It will be appropriate to recall the small-sized electronic warfare stations that were installed on some of our anti-ship missiles. Alas, a significant part of the naval aviation did not have electronic warfare equipment at all, and first of all, this must be said about the extremely valuable helicopters (including the Ka-25Ts target designators). Conventional electronic warfare aviation stations did not rise in mass. But the fact that there are nearby (and "in the series") very interesting stations "at the missilemen", we, alas, did not "see".

Alas, the fleet did not see all this. Life went according to the principle "eat what they give." Even with the use of standard air-to-air missile systems, the Yak-38 was initially very “careful”:

“The headquarters of the naval aviation quite often showed petty care and, with its innumerable instructions, hindered the development of technology.

The already mentioned Edush cites such a case. According to the plan, during the expedition of the aircraft carrier "Kiev" in 1980, it was supposed to make two launches of R-60 missiles (a short-range air combat missile with a thermal guidance head). On the appointed day, one aircraft was lifted from the hangar onto the deck of the TAKR and began its pre-flight training. The rocket launch was ordered to produce Food ...

Described by the performer himself.

“On assignment, I made the first launch from a distance of 8 km. When the rocket derailed from the guide, the aircraft developed a slight roll, a large plume formed, and the rocket went to the target. The target was hit. The second missile was launched from a range of 10 km.

During the launch of the missiles, the entire crew of the ship, free from watch, poured onto the deck. "

After the missiles were launched, a report was sent to the aviation headquarters. The result was unexpected, but in the style of naval aviation leadership.

Together with congratulations, reprimands were issued to the deputy aviation commander of the Northern Fleet for naval aviation N.F. Logachev and Edush for the untimely report on preparations for launching missiles. "

The first interception of the Yak-38 with R-60M missiles (aircraft from the Eisenhower aircraft carrier) took place in 1983.

In the memoirs of the officers of the Navy, the active use of the Yak-38 to intercept potential carriers of anti-ship missiles in the second half of the 80s at the Pacific Fleet is given.

However, the extremely small number (literally a single one) of Yak-38 photographs with R-60M missiles clearly indicates that the attitude towards this both from the Navy and from the Naval Aviation was, to put it mildly, restrained. The warhead of the R-60M was weak against large aircraft. And with enemy fighter-bombers (even with suspensions), our low-maneuverable "vertical" with weak missiles and a primitive sight (only with the "fi-zero" R-60M) did not shine, in general, nothing.

The demoralizing factor is also of great importance. It's one thing to practice strikes against sea and ground targets, where flying skills can achieve something in terms of combat effectiveness, and quite another thing when the flight crew knew that no matter how hard they tried, they had practically no chances against enemy fighters.

Rare photos of Yak-38 with R-60 (M) missiles.

Alas, the likelihood of a sharp increase in the aircraft's capabilities due to new missiles and the NCU was not seen by “who should” (and those who flew “were not supposed to know about it”).

And what about the range of an interceptor with 4 R-73 missiles?

According to A.M. Artemyev (article "Taking off from the ship"), during the state tests of the Yak-36M (Yak-38) aircraft, a practical flight range at an altitude of 200 m with two X-23 missiles was obtained - 430 km. The weight of the suspensions with the UR-X-23 was at least 800 kg (two missiles, their launchers and the Delta equipment), that is, 4 R-73 (with their own APUs) and a light radar more than stood up. At the same time, the radius fully ensured the interception of the Harpoon carriers before their launch, which was extremely valuable and important for the USSR Navy in the situation of the 80s.

Once again, I emphasize that this is true if the "bundle" is working - the Ka-25Ts helicopters with a powerful detection radar and the Yak-38 with R-73 missiles.

A short run question


The factor that significantly increased the capabilities of the Yak-38M was the short takeoff run.

A.M. Artemiev:

“By combining WRC and short-range landing, significant improvements in aircraft performance were achieved, especially in tropical conditions.

So, at a temperature of +30 ° C, starting with a takeoff run of 110 m, it turned out to be possible to increase the take-off weight of the aircraft by 1400 kg.

An important achievement was the significant fuel economy (280 kg, compared to 360 kg for vertical takeoff).

When landing with the new and the old method, fuel consumption was 120 and 240 kg, respectively.

In terms of the specified 1400 kg for fuel, this meant an increase in the range of the vehicle from 75 to 250 km at low altitudes and from 150 to 350 km at high altitudes. "

The numbers are very interesting.

However, it should be borne in mind that if the takeoff with a short takeoff (SRS) justified itself, then the landing with "slip" was possible only in a calm state of the sea. The study of takeoff from the springboard (according to the "English model") showed that due to the complexity of the selection of the necessary engine thrust vector control algorithm, this method is not for the Yak-38.

At the same time, the WRC issue turned out to be much more complicated than “just vertical take-off”.

“On September 8, 1980 in the South China Sea, with an outside temperature of about 29 degrees, and full fueling, a disaster occurred.

When performing an FQP with TAKR "Minsk" the Yak-38 aircraft piloted by test pilot O.G. Kononenko, on the edge of the flight deck, sank, hooked his wheels to the parapet and, turning 120 degrees, went under the water.

The pilot did not attempt to eject, it is possible that he lost consciousness.

The plane sank at a depth of 92 m. A few days later it was lifted by a Zhiguli marine rescuer who had come from Vladivostok.

Deciphering the means of objective control showed that there were no failures.

However, when we once again analyzed the direction of the air flows on the deck, we found out that at the nose section there is a sharp deceleration, leading to a significant decrease in the lift of the wing and, as a consequence, to the subsidence of the aircraft.

To laminate the flow, we removed the bow restraint, installed baffles, screens and other measures. ”

In this regard, the graphics of some sketches along the "vertical lines" in the part close to a simultaneous group takeoff with a short takeoff run raises certain doubts about its reality.

In any case, until the completion of all the necessary research and testing. Which for 1143 and Yak-38M for the "group WRC" no one thought to carry out.

Takeoff with a short takeoff run of the Yak-38M and the study of a simultaneous "group WRC" for the TAVKR "Baku" and Yak-141.

However, even with vertical takeoff, the Yak-38 ensured (subject to timely target designation) interception of the Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers before their launch.

A powerful missile salvo of the operational anti-ship missile system (ASM ON) of the TAVKR and the possibility of using the Yak-38 from converted ships (or naval ships with helipads).

TAVKR project 1143 with effective ship interceptors


A sharp increase in the effectiveness of air defense due to naval interceptors would allow the TAVKR to operate actively in the far zone (including in cooperation with the Marine Missile Carrier and Long-Range Aviation).

We are not talking about "winning" Kiev "all the" Nimites ". The bottom line is that the dramatically increased combat stability of the TAVKR and ship formations had systemic consequences on the capabilities of all our forces in the theater of operations, providing:

- effective interaction of ship formations (including nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles ON) with MRA and DA;

- a sharp increase in the effectiveness of the grouping of missile nuclear submarines of project 675 with operational anti-ship missiles "Basalt" and "Vulkan" (subject to their inclusion in the order and the anti-submarine defense system of our operational formation);

- a significant increase in the capabilities of reconnaissance and target designation (with the possibility of using anti-ship missiles ON TAVKR as a reconnaissance target designator);

- a multiple increase in the capabilities and effectiveness of anti-submarine defense of ships and our compound due to the likelihood of active use of helicopters and such extremely effective means of destruction as the APR-2 "Yastreb" (there was nothing close in efficiency in the armament of the Navy ships).

The efficiency of naval submarines 1 and their generation anti-ship missiles increased sharply when they were included in the operational connection with the TAVKR.

The opportunities were ...

However, even no one really worked them out. Even super-current experiments using the "Success" system as AWACS after the death of their initiator died out.

The main problem of our aircraft carrier


First, "just quotes."

V.N. Kondaurov (Life-Long Runway) about one of 1143:

“Day after day I learned the laws of inner life on the ship.

For example, meal times varied depending on whether the ship was at anchor or underway.

If you do not want to stay hungry, listen to the announcement of the watch officer on the intercom:

"Wash hands for the team!"

The pilots who were in the air at that time could not count on the galley in the future.

All over it was felt that the aircraft was on the ship in the role of "stepdaughter".

And even more "fun", almost "déjà vu" with "some recent events" already about "Kuznetsov":

“- I am 202, what happened there?

- We do not have time to receive you on this tack, there is shallow water ahead, report the remaining fuel.

- The remainder does not allow to go to the airfield.

- Wait above us. Now we will "jump back" and take this course again.

"Nice thing -" bounce ", until it passes, it gets completely dark",

- Swearing weakly, with some apathy to everything that was happening, I removed everything that I let out and climbed higher. The minutes passed in agonizing anticipation, the twilight deepened, the fuel was coming to an end.

“Damn it! When will it all end ?! "

Finally, I get permission to enter.

After the end of the maneuver, it turned out that either I was in a hurry, or they were there “spreading the porridge on the plate,” but on the landing straight I saw that the TAKR had not yet finished writing its “curve” over the surface of the rough sea.

Another passage over the ship that had already switched on the landing lights on the deck, another pass in which I simply could not help but sit down with the rest of the fuel.

Aviation Chief of the Baltic Fleet (2001-2004) Lieutenant General V.N. Sokerin:

Spring 2001 of the year.

45 years of the Baltic naval base. In the DOP in Baltiysk, there is nowhere for an apple to fall - half of the fleet headquarters arrived 50 kilometers away to "shed a tear of emotion" on the occasion of the anniversary of the association created, as can be seen from the figure, after the war - the Main Base of the Baltic Fleet.

Spring 2001. No less pompous, with the participation of all admirals, the 40th anniversary of the division of surface ships in the same Baltiysk.

Summer of the same 2001. DOP of Kaliningrad (for information - located two minutes walk from the headquarters of the Baltic Fleet).

A solemn meeting dedicated to the 85th (!) - anniversary of the BF Air Force - the oldest air force association in the whole country, from the creation of which the chronology of the country's aviation comes. As you know, it was in the Baltic Sea, thanks to the efforts, energy, labor and talent of naval officers (eternal memory and worship of aviators), that domestic aviation, as such, and naval aviation, in particular, was created.

Invitations were sent to all admirals of the fleet management.

In the hall there are empty seats in the first rows: not a single person from the fleet (!!!). On our anniversary, the fleet did not help anything, but it spoiled everything it could ...

During the Great Patriotic War, there were only seven Heroes of the Soviet Union - submariners and 53 - pilots in the Northern Fleet, but in peacetime post-war sailors "riveted" more Hero-submariners than there were pilots-Heroes during the war, and aviation after the war seems to be like "She was playing with pears" ...

And the naval commanders are furious in relation to aviation, it is completely incomprehensible why to their own, and not someone else's, from the fact that, as a result of hostilities in World War II and, especially, after the creation of anti-ship aviation missile systems, they clearly realized that incommensurate with a ship is not either in size or in the number of crew members, the plane is a kind of deadly scorpion for a ship of any rank, practically unpunished, all-seeing, cold-blooded and lightning-fast killer ...

At the beginning of the last century, the navy gave birth to naval aviation.

Almost 100 years later, he kills her. "

These are not "fresh quotes"?

You can also "fresh" - see the article on the results of 2020 in the Navy, with a number of "wild" details about the state and combat training of the Naval Aviation (and references, for example, to how the BF Commander is proud of the raid of his "falcons" in only ... 60 hours).

In the US Navy at the end of the 30s, the expression "black boots" was in vogue - about naval senior officers who often did not understand (and did not accept!) The new capabilities of aviation. And not in vain, at one time, in the United States it was decided that only a pilot can be the commander of an aircraft carrier. This does not mean that a talented commander of a task force with aircraft carriers cannot leave destroyers or cruisers (and the experience of World War II also showed this). But the fact is that this problem exists, but for our Navy it has a factor of just a "noose around the neck."

Moreover, during the recent reforms, the situation has only worsened.

It is enough to compare the ratio of ships and aircraft in major events of the Navy in the USSR and in the Russian Federation, and it becomes clear that “for the sake of ships” (and especially “favorite boats”) our Navy quietly “strangled” its own aviation - to practically “decorative level”.

But what about the "air threat"?

I will reveal a "terrible military secret": when carrying out measures of operational combat training, enemy forces are deliberately and significantly underestimated (from real ones). If we raise all the command and staff exercises (and similar events) of the Navy over the past 10-20 years, we have never and never "played" with the outfit of enemy forces (especially aviation), close to real ...

The phrase said by one of the teachers of the Naval Academy to his graduate student:

“The main thing is that there should be approximately equal shares of“ red ”and“ blue ”on the map. But there is a lot of both ”.

Accordingly, in the current reality of the Navy, we are simply not talking about effective Naval Aviation, as well as about the real threat of air attack weapons (and here you can “hide behind a fig leaf” of shooting at ancient targets such as PM15 or Saman).

You can take "golden towers" of "innovative radar systems" that are not capable of specifically shooting down real targets.

It all started “not now,” but right now it has taken on especially ugly forms.

Our aircraft carrier?

And why is he in the ranks of the Navy - "one concern." Our admirals love to admire the boats at the exhibitions, and their "toy" planes do not carry any anxiety in themselves (unlike the real ones).

Yes, not all.

There are admirals and officers who have fought to change this. Something succeeded ...

For example, save "Kuznetsov". But the "overall balance" is such that

our naval aviation is actually "trampled by black boots."

And, in fact, this is the main conclusion of the article.

Without "organizational aviationization" of the Navy, no technical measures will give results.

Moreover, if the state "right now" would give money "for an aircraft carrier", they would certainly be "effectively used." With the same "semi-fainting result" as "Kuznetsov" today.

At one time, at the initial stage of work on aircraft carriers and naval aviation of the US Navy, Captain Reeves conducted a huge amount of research exercises and tests, ranging from a variety of new technical samples and ideas to tactics and operational use of aircraft carriers and connections with them.

Nothing of the kind has been carried out in our fleet.

And if this is not carried out further, even very large investments in the fleet will not give any serious and effective result.

Until our naval thought begins to "boil and search" for a new, effective one, finally coming out of a state of "convulsion" from fright

"If it didn't work out"

(and "as if by chance not to offend reputable businessmen")

we won't have a fleet.
Author:
241 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 22 February 2021 05: 25
    +6

    I will reveal a "terrible military secret": when carrying out measures of operational combat training, enemy forces are deliberately and significantly underestimated (from real ones). If we raise all the command and staff exercises (and similar events) of the Navy over the past 10-20 years, we have never and never "played" with the outfit of enemy forces (especially aviation), close to real ...
    "open secret" damn ... you look at the "star", so everything is always successful with us, all the goals are hit, but in the "biathlon" the puncture came out, everyone saw how they smeared ATGMs, and the journalist happily yelled "right in the center!" .. .you ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 February 2021 11: 56
      0
      Quote: Aerodrome
      and in the "biathlon" the puncture came out, everyone saw how ATGMs smeared

      On the "biathlon" they were smeared with TOURS.
      But the ATGM was hit at about the same time - in the exercises in your own tank.
  2. Destiny
    Destiny 22 February 2021 05: 44
    +1
    We do not have time to wait for new aircraft carrier ships to appear in the Russian Navy, and Russian Navy ships capable of carrying helicopters can be equipped with fighters with vertical takeoff and landing. Such aircraft are also useful for the Air Force, because a jet fighter requires an airfield with a good runway. However, there are not so many such airfields, and they can be quickly destroyed. They are unpretentious, they can be placed even in a forest in a clearing, which dramatically increases their survivability and gives exceptional combat stability. The vertical takeoff fighter was needed before and is needed now.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 22 February 2021 07: 06
      +3
      Quote: Destiny
      ... and VTOL fighters can also be equipped with Russian Navy ships capable of carrying helicopters. Such aircraft will also be useful for the Air Force, because a jet fighter requires an airfield with a good runway. However, there are not so many such airfields, and they They can be quickly destroyed, they are unpretentious, they can be placed even in a forest in a clearing, which dramatically increases their survivability and gives exceptional combat stability ...

      On what ship of the Russian Navy is it really possible to "shove" a GDP fighter ???
      It will NOT be possible to base a VTOL aircraft "under each pine tree" ... We have already sorted out this question on the VO ...
      1. Destiny
        Destiny 22 February 2021 07: 57
        -3
        Any size that allows helicopters to be carried. In addition, VTOL aircraft can be used from warships capable of receiving helicopters, for example from frigates or cruisers. We have missile cruisers that have a helipad. Yes, they are for search and rescue or anti-submarine support. , but they will be able to work as points for attack aircraft. And there will be a link of Ka-32 helicopters nearby. Naturally, they will complement each other and increase the combat effectiveness of any surface ship several times. In reconnaissance, defense, and system Air defense, and strike. Yes, even for a tanker that is equipped with a ramp and becomes a kind of aircraft carrier, in Soviet times we had such projects. Not from a good life, just aircraft carriers in the near future can not be expected. they, if I understood correctly? Then urgently call the Ministry of Defense, otherwise they have already been included in the state armament program until 2027. Let them cancel, otherwise they can only eat kerosene Yes, and the Americans must be told that these F-35Bs, which are unnecessary in your opinion (I have no doubt at all), were handed over for scrap as unnecessary and useless.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 22 February 2021 08: 32
          0
          Quote: Destiny
          Do you think they are not needed, if I understood correctly? Then call the Ministry of Defense urgently, otherwise they have already been included in the state armament program until 2027. Let them cancel, otherwise they can only eat kerosene and fly not far away. And the Americans need to say that these unnecessary in your opinion the authoritative (I have no doubt at all) the opinion of the F-35B was handed over for scrap as unnecessary and useless.

          Sarcasm ... we can do it all ...
          I, if I am not mistaken, did not write about "scrap metal", but many wrote about the fact that VTOL aircraft have significant limitations compared to the aircraft of the standard scheme ...
          And the comparison with the Americans is incorrect, and, perhaps, not serious. They have one strategy - world domination, we have a completely different one that has not really been formulated for 30 years. The Americans made their own VTOL aircraft for the KMP .. And the YAK, at one time, for the Air Force, and then it turned out - for the TAVKRs ... There was no objective reason and strategy for creating a VTOL aircraft, neither then, nor is it now. And the fact that they "have already been included" and "will be designed / supplied", we better not talk about that ...
          VTOL aircraft, of course, has its own niche, but very narrow. And at a cost it is inferior to conventional aircraft.
          ... I would like to watch the VTOL aircraft take off from the frigate's helicopter deck ...
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 22 February 2021 19: 20
            -1
            So after all, VTOL aircraft were tested primarily on our helicopter-carrying cruisers. Refused. The plane flew, but the experience was recognized as non-killing. And there the deck is big. Was. So everything is correct. You can't plant a VTOL aircraft anywhere.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 22 February 2021 13: 45
          +1
          Does the frigate have a heat-resistant helipad? (Yak-38/41 demanded this)
          Is there an additional supply of fuel?
          And what about the storage of products and the cabin of the person who will hang these products?
          These are the first questions that come to mind.
      2. Intruder
        Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 09
        +1
        You will NOT be able to base VTOL aircraft "under every pine tree".
        not under a pine tree, but on a poorly equipped runway, with YAKs 38-39 (41), and they did just that! On the basis of metal shields, they collected, you can collect almost anywhere a small surface area, the main thing is that the soil allows straight arms to grow from "the right places" ...
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 23 February 2021 10: 31
          0
          And adjust the sight - also under each pine tree?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 24 February 2021 13: 20
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            And adjust the sight - also under each pine tree?

            So this is our eternal misfortune: most believe that military hardware has the auto repair function enabled by default. They still remember about the supply of fuel and ammunition, but about maintenance and repairs - they cut it off. So aerodromes appear in an open field without TEC, where inter-flight service is performed only as fairies materializing from the air. smile
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 24 February 2021 18: 02
              0
              drinks
              Almost the same weight goes to each plane ... So put it under each pine tree. And all the paper magic ....! And the people ...
              An upright is such a wunderflugzeug, it doesn't need anything.
            2. Lozovik
              Lozovik 24 February 2021 22: 44
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              So aerodromes appear in an open field without TEC, where inter-flight service is performed only as fairies materializing from the air.

              At operational aerodromes, flight crews can train aircraft. Of the TEC for repairing ATs at such aerodromes, only PRGs are available.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 22 February 2021 07: 56
      +1
      Quote: Destiny
      They are unpretentious, they can be placed even in a forest in a clearing, which dramatically increases their survivability and gives exceptional combat stability.

      You have been described here for so long that a vertical plane cannot live in any forest, and its usefulness as a separate aircraft is very, very doubtful, only in the composition and with powerful support.
    3. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 11: 11
      +4
      fighters with vertical takeoff and landing can be equipped with ships of the Russian Navy, capable of carrying helicopters


      No, they cannot. And we don't have such fighters.
      Moreover, in terms of time, the construction of an aircraft carrier of the "Vikrant" level will take us less time than the creation of a VTOL aircraft. And only 4-5 times more money will be required.
      A thousand times it has already been explained here on "VO".
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 22 February 2021 18: 52
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        No, they cannot. And we don't have such fighters.

        Actually the key phrase. We now have neither vertical takeoff aircraft, nor developments, nor even a decent design bureau capable of doing this in an adequate time frame. Naked fantasy.

        Unfortunately, except for how to forget and look for a way that is easier - there are no options.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 11: 35
      +9
      Quote: Destiny
      We do not have time to wait for the appearance of new aircraft carrier ships in the Russian Navy

      Therefore, let's create a modern VTOL aircraft for 15-20 years, the development cost of which will be comparable to the aircraft carrier program.
      Quote: Destiny
      These aircraft will also be useful for the Air Force, since a jet fighter requires an airfield with a good runway. However, there are not so many such airfields.

      Can be used by civilians.
      Quote: Destiny
      and they can be quickly destroyed

      Can not. Destroying the airfield is generally a non-trivial task, which the last Tomahawk attack on the Syrian Air Force base confirmed
      Quote: Destiny
      They are unpretentious, they can be placed even in a forest in a clearing

      Yes of course. They do not need any special coating, no fuel, no maintenance, no ammunition supplies ... They fly with holy spirit and raspberries with cones.
      Quote: Destiny
      A vertical takeoff fighter was needed before and is needed now.

      even the Americans, who have a lot of money, NEVER were going to take VTOL aircraft to the Air Force. They have a niche aircraft for the specific needs of the UMP
      1. Newone
        Newone 22 February 2021 14: 47
        +1
        Andrey, it seems to me that you are wrong about the time and cost of creating an SVVP aircraft. Having a super-maneuverable aircraft with a ratio of engine thrust to takeoff / landing weight> 1, the creation of such an aircraft is greatly simplified. the thrust of the Su-35 with afterburner is 28kt, the normal take-off weight is 25300. For the Su-57 with the first stage engines, it is 30kt versus 26510 with 63% fuel.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 16: 08
          -3
          Quote: Newone
          Andrey, it seems to me that you are wrong about the time and cost of creating an SVVP aircraft. Having a super-maneuverable aircraft with a ratio of engine thrust to takeoff / landing weight> 1, the creation of such an aircraft is greatly simplified.

          It doesn't simplify anything. To begin with, we don't even have an engine for it - adapting the Al41 for this business is such a decision. One engine is not enough, two is a lot.
          1. Newone
            Newone 22 February 2021 17: 04
            +1
            Andrey, the SU-35 has a serial engine (as well as the first-stage engine on the SU-57). Two such engines are ALREADY enough. And don't get hung up on the Harrier circuit.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 February 2021 18: 24
              +1
              Well, tell me how to take off vertically on a pair of AL-41F
              1. Newone
                Newone 22 February 2021 19: 05
                +3
                Timokhin have you seen the figure of "Pugachev's Cobra"? Have you seen the landing of the first steps of the Falcon Maskovsky?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 February 2021 19: 09
                  +2
                  Of course I saw
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 22 February 2021 19: 23
                    0
                    Add landing supports to the dryers (this is a revision of the rear stabilizers of the aircraft) and, thanks to the thrust-to-weight ratio and high controllability, we will be able to take off and land "on a rocket basis."
                    Naturally, the landing site should be appropriate.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 February 2021 19: 36
                      +2
                      You need a vertical compression fuselage that:
                      1. Aerodynamically turns the plane into a flying coffin.
                      2. Will be overweight and reduce thrust-to-weight ratio.

                      Believe me, you are not the first one to try to come up with such an airplane. People who lived on this planet before you had at least not the worst imagination ..
                      1. Newone
                        Newone 22 February 2021 19: 40
                        0
                        Timokhin, what kind of vertical compression are you talking about? The stabilizers take over the impulse. The body of the aircraft in the longitudinal direction is MUCH more durable than on a break - read the textbooks of strength materials. The loads experienced by a maneuvering 6g aircraft. This is 3 times more than the landing load.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 19: 41
                        +2
                        The stabilizers take over the impulse.


                        And where do they then TRANSFER

                        read textbooks of strength of materials


                        Whose cow would moan, that's real.
                      3. Newone
                        Newone 22 February 2021 19: 46
                        0
                        Timokhin, according to the principle of action, shock absorbers convert the pulse energy into heat. Didn't you know that?
                        that's real.

                        Realistically Timokhin read at least textbooks, and not just memoirs and advertising articles in foreign journals on military topics.
                        And I still suggest not quarreling, but a normal argument. Give your arguments about "vertical compression"
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 20: 08
                        +1
                        I repeat once again - whose cow would mumble about the strength of materials.

                        No shock absorber will translate anything into heat in one compression stroke, the liquid is incompressible.
                        Well, I already wrote to you about the weight return.
                        How much will four sprung struts weigh there, capable of withstanding a landing of 20+ tons at a speed of 1-1,5 m / s?

                        You can get textbooks.
                      5. Newone
                        Newone 22 February 2021 20: 28
                        +2
                        Timokhin, about 3000kg. With composites, much less.
                        "No shock absorber will translate anything into heat in one compression stroke, the liquid is incompressible." The fluid damper works by viscous friction.
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        23 February 2021 00: 26
                        +1
                        Timokhin, about 3000kg. With composites, much less.


                        And of course you can confirm this with calculations.

                        "No shock absorber will translate anything into heat in one compression stroke, the liquid is incompressible." The fluid damper works by viscous friction.


                        This is in a car somewhere, with multiple repetitive loads, but even there, the effects from the amrotizer are transmitted to the upper attachment point, up to the mechanism of damage to the upper supports and deformations of the body, and when you land the aircraft vertically on the amorts, pure hydromechanics will go - a car sat on the supports, they pushed up the rods, the rods through the pistons pressed on the liquid, it pressed on the top of the shock absorber, from there the load (in fact, the blow) went to the airframe, but part of it was removed due to the fluid flow inside the shock absorber under the piston through the bypass holes or valve, I do not know what you fantasize there for yourself. All this will be a one-time action.
                        Part of it will go into heat, I do not argue.

                        In short, study the subject at least a little
                      7. Newone
                        Newone 26 February 2021 20: 39
                        0
                        the impacts from the amrotizer are transmitted to the upper attachment point, up to the mechanism of damage to the upper supports and deformations of the body

                        If the shock absorber operates outside the design mode, it is transmitted. And if in the design mode, then the rod presses on the lower part of the shock absorber, that on the liquid. The liquid enters the upper part of the shock absorber through the valves and begins to compress the gas located there. Impact energy is converted into heat due to viscous friction when the liquid passes through the valves and due to gas compression. There is no direct transfer of impulse to the aircraft structure through the shock absorber. Shock absorbers for this purpose "does not happen" and set.

                        No shock absorber will translate anything into heat in one compression stroke,

                        and then
                        but part of it was removed due to the fluid flow inside the shock absorber


                        In short, Timokhin go read the principles of the work of what you write about, and at the same time the basics of strength materials and the basics of logic. I am not writing about an ethics textbook;
                      8. timokhin-aa
                        26 February 2021 20: 49
                        0
                        What you described is a liquid-gas shock absorber, even in it all the compression energy does not go into heat. Part only.

                        In any case, the vertical force is transmitted to the upper fulcrum, even in a purely gas shock absorber, where there is no liquid at all.

                        I propose to link up with this discussion, I do not have a medical education to return it to a healthy track.
                      9. Newone
                        Newone 26 February 2021 21: 07
                        0
                        What you described is a liquid gas shock absorber

                        Yes, this is a liquid gas shock absorber, one of the types that are used in the landing gear of an aircraft.
                        In any case, the vertical force is transmitted to the upper fulcrum,

                        We're talking about momentum on touch. And the force of gravity is, of course, transmitted through the upper mount of the strut to the shock absorber, and then through the support to the ground.

                        I have no medical education,

                        Oh, did you argue with me here, having missed the pill? Well, OK.
        2. mmaxx
          mmaxx 23 February 2021 05: 59
          0
          The fighter rises vertically from level flight with speed for normal control. Aerodynamic surfaces control the aircraft only when there is air flow of a certain speed on them.
          And if the plane is put and crunched from a stop up, the same problems begin as with a conventional VTOL aircraft. No speed, no control.
        3. Newone
          Newone 26 February 2021 20: 42
          0
          Variable-vector thrust engine + venting rudders (if needed at all.
  3. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 February 2021 14: 26
    0
    Quote: Newone
    Add landing supports to the dryers (this is a revision of the rear stabilizers of the aircraft) and, thanks to the thrust-to-weight ratio and high controllability, we will be able to take off and land "on a rocket basis."

    Offer to dig it up again stewardess "Vertijet" and "Coleopter"? wink
    1. Newone
      Newone 26 February 2021 20: 23
      0
      Not. Read what I suggested above.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 19: 27
    0
    Quote: Newone
    Andrey, the SU-35 has a serial engine (as well as the first-stage engine on the SU-57). Two such engines are ALREADY enough

    Enough - for what? Are you going to do a twin-engine heavy VTOL fighter? :))))
    Quote: Newone
    And don't get hung up on the Harrier circuit.

    No question, suggest your
    1. Newone
      Newone 22 February 2021 19: 30
      0
      Andrey, I propose to consider the technical side of the issue instead of historical excursions. And if you can't make a light VTOL fighter, but you can make a heavy one, then you have to calf a heavy one.
      "Enough - for what?"
      For vertical lift of the aircraft, air without the use of aerodynamic lifting forces, powered by the engine.
      See the diagram in the post above.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 19: 37
        +3
        Quote: Newone
        Add landing supports to the dryers (this is a revision of the rear stabilizers of the aircraft) and, thanks to the thrust-to-weight ratio and high controllability, we will be able to take off and land "on a rocket basis."

        For originality - an absolute plus. But still "Pugachova's Cobra" is a little different, the point is not in the hovering of the aircraft at a rest point relative to the ground, but in pitch control and reaching supercritical angles when the aircraft moves forward.
        That is, the "cobra" itself is an aerobatics figure, but here you will need a much more complex control. In addition, a "rocket VTOL aircraft" will never be able to fly from ships (landing in this way in rolling conditions - well, such a thing)
        1. Newone
          Newone 22 February 2021 19: 42
          0
          Andrei pitching will be taken over by shock absorbers. And yes, of course, you have to work with the control system. But the example of the same Musk proves the solvability of the problem (and he has a thin-walled long step, not a relatively short plane.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 19: 47
            +4
            Quote: Newone
            Andrey Kachka will be chosen by shock absorbers

            They will not choose. In general, I doubt that such an aircraft can be made - this is not an empty section of a spaceship on a flat surface to land. Here the center of gravity should be at the bottom, and how the plane will fly with this ... I have no idea at all.
            Quote: Newone
            ... But the example of the same Musk proves the solvability of the problem (and he has a thin-walled long step, not a relatively short plane.

            Just to plant the Mask step - to send two bytes, in comparison with what you suggest.
            1. Newone
              Newone 22 February 2021 19: 50
              0
              Andrey, Musk is putting him on a platform in the sea. And I'm sorry, but when landing on an aircraft carrier, the shock absorbers also compensate for the pitching. As they are enough.

              The mask step is MUCH harder to plant. The height is higher - the lever is larger when tilted, the design is thin-walled to bends, poorly adapted, in contrast to the SU, which is designed to rotate with accelerations up to 6g
            2. Newone
              Newone 22 February 2021 23: 11
              0
              Here the center of gravity should be at the bottom, and how the plane will fly with this ... I have no idea at all.

              The fact is that the center of gravity of the Su-35 and Su-57 is shifted to the stabilizer, in other words, the engines are heavier than the nose of the aircraft. It ALREADY is. The Su-35 and Su-57 are therefore dynamically unstable. It is more difficult to control them (automation helps), but maneuverability and efficiency of maneuvers increase.
              So when landing, the center of gravity will be below, like Musk.
    2. bayard
      bayard 23 February 2021 01: 37
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Quote: Newone
      Andrey, the SU-35 has a serial engine (as well as the first-stage engine on the SU-57). Two such engines are ALREADY enough

      Enough - for what? Are you going to do a twin-engine heavy VTOL fighter? :))))

      The power of the AL-41F is not enough. About the twin-engine version of vertical start-landing - expensive \ difficult \ irrational. But with the engine "Product-30" - it will be just right.
      it is possible to make a VTOL aircraft with excellent characteristics, if we abandon the excesses of the F-35 - a vertical thrust fan (lifting engines are lighter, easier to implement and take up less space), intra-fuselage placement of ammunition (inflates the fuselage, unnecessarily makes the structure unnecessarily heavy, reduces wearable ammunition, incl. h. in size) and excessive use of "STELS technology".
      If the goal is simply to make a good MF VTOL aircraft, then on the "Product-30", you can get a fighter with characteristics similar to the MiG-29 \ 35, acceptable combat load and operational characteristics.
      This is what concerns the purely technical side.
      And the executor for this purpose ... in any case was ... and even took up the development of this project - Yakovlev Design Bureau. The operating time for the Yak-41 and F-35 (the specialists of this design bureau worked in the USA on this project) should be enough to start work ... The question is - have the personnel been preserved, is there anyone to work now?
      But the question of the expediency of these works is even tougher.
      Does the Fleet need such an aircraft? ... It's better not to even ask the admirals, they ruined the basic aviation too.
      And is such a VKS aircraft needed?
      If there is a field of application, it will be justified and there will be money ... and personnel for implementation ... then why not?
      And you can base on the new UDC ...
      But a classic aircraft carrier, even a medium VI ... with a catapult, is much better. Since it will be able to use AWACS aircraft.

      But for now, all these arguments are like in Kartsev's monologue about crayfish;
      - Yesterday big, but five, and today three, but small ... True, there is no money (and opportunities) even for a toad - a ruble.

      For now, we need to do what is possible - to develop basic aviation - fighter, reconnaissance, anti-submarine, special, MRA. at least the industry is more or less capable of this.
      And you need a clear long-term planning ... and not rush about the market with bare butts in search of happiness.
      Sincerely . hi
  • Intruder
    Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 12
    0
    NEVER were going to take VTOL aircraft to the Air Force. They have a niche aircraft for the specific needs of the UMP
    that's right, and in the USSR he was not needed for the Air Force, but for the Navy it would be quite suitable if it were not for the "black boots" trampled, with love for "playing with boats" and naval parades, for the irreplaceable "eternally sun-faced" ones!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 February 2021 15: 25
      0
      Quote: Intruder
      that's right, and in the USSR he was not needed for the Air Force, but for the Navy it would be quite suitable if it were not for the "black boots" trampled, with love for "playing with boats" and naval parades, for the irreplaceable "eternally sun-faced" ones!

      In the USSR, VTOL aircraft was imposed on the fleet with "boots" from the Ministry of Defense and who joined them Amelko.
      The "aircraft carrier lobby" of the Navy demanded a full-fledged AB with catapults, classic vehicles and deck AWACS. And every time instrument of imperialist aggression was rejected by the Ministry of Defense, and instead of it a missile and aircraft carrier hermaphrodite was imposed on the fleet, which did not ensure the normal operation of even the SCVVP.
      And the worst thing is that all these hardware games cost the Navy at least 20 lost years, and the country - clouds of money and resources spent on the "asymmetric response fleet", capable of working normally only within the effective radius of coastal aviation (when the regiment from the nearest airfield arrives faster, than the detected enemy strikers will reach the launch distance).
  • Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 22 February 2021 12: 08
    -6
    Quote: Destiny
    The vertical takeoff fighter was needed before and is needed now

    dead-end branch of Evolution.
    1. Gookuni yeddey
      Gookuni yeddey 23 February 2021 17: 38
      0
      [/ quote] [quote = Aerodrome] dead-end branch of Evolution.
      Exactly. And naval aviators realized this even before 1980.
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 22 February 2021 14: 11
    -5
    fighters with vertical takeoff and landing can be equipped with ships of the Russian Navy, capable of carrying helicopters
    Can not. To operate a rocket aircraft, it requires much more labor-intensive maintenance, more fuel, and more ammunition. There is simply no room for all this on rocket ships. To increase the payload to an acceptable level, VTOL aircraft do not take off vertically, but with a small take-off run, and land also with low mileage.
    Similarly, for a land-based base, if the average parking near the mall can still be used as an impromptu runway, then it will no longer work to land a jet plane in a forest clearing.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 03
    0
    A vertical takeoff fighter was needed before and is needed now.
    then a universal (shock) one with VTOL, preferably with two crew members and, optionally, with the functions of a light attack aircraft, to work along the coast, if necessary in the "interests" of the BDK protection, or the landing of the MP troops !? wink
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 February 2021 13: 09
    0
    Quote: Destiny
    They are unpretentious, they can be placed even in a forest in a clearing, which dramatically increases their survivability and gives them exceptional combat stability.

    Yep ... TEC is not shown in the diagram. smile
    The times of basing in the forest in the clearing ended at the dawn of aviation. Already in the Second World War, a similar basing without a normal airfield with BAO ended with the regiment becoming "disposable".
    And you propose to base in the forest in a clearing of SCVVPs, which require inter-flight service many times more than classic cars (due to the UHT system).
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 February 2021 10: 01
    0
    Take a hose with water and direct it to the clearing, see what will happen to the ground, verticals are extremely capricious to base.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 22 February 2021 07: 52
    +4
    Pancake.
    As you read about the fleet here, you want to hang yourself. Or strangle someone.
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 22 February 2021 08: 45
      +8
      It is not necessary, it is better to suspend for causal places those who from their high offices look at the fleet as the stepson of the unloved and treat it accordingly.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 22 February 2021 08: 54
      +12
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      so I want to hang myself. Or strangle someone.

      Why dirty your hands on yourself? Better strangle ... and partisans! Then there are enough people who want to strangle you! (A joke of the Papuan partisans ...) Isn't one fleet enough here? That is already the Papuans with "Javelins" running around, but we did not have "Autonomy" lying around! Either the "Armata" got stuck somewhere on its way to the troops, then the Su-57 landed in the wrong place, then the ships maneuver, maneuver, but do not float ... and we have the wrong caliber torpedoes, and there are no GPS shells! So what? All this makes the Russians just more indifferent! Vaughn and the government is trying to offend us; And we are getting fat! Give the "Western Europeans" 5 years of such a life as we have ... so they will rebel or die! And we live like this for 30 years ... and nothing! Here the "NATO members" are at a loss and are ... from this bewilderment, maybe. and do not dare to attack! And there, you see, everything will work out "by itself"! Maybe so in Russia ... (for example, in the Kremlin, MO ...) are they talking?
    3. Intruder
      Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 15
      +1
      so I want to hang myself. Or strangle someone.
      it is better to "present a bullet" and quietly close the door in the office ... hi
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 22 February 2021 08: 10
    -10%
    TAVKR project 1143 ahead of its time. This is exactly the layout of the aircraft carrier of the future. Armed naturally with modern missile systems. And uavs, which need less space in the hangar. It is precisely built on this principle and whether the scheme is convenient for you and should look like a strike aircraft carrier of the future.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 11: 11
      +3
      No, this is not true. A full-fledged aircraft carrier will ALWAYS be stronger.
      1. Foxnova
        Foxnova 22 February 2021 13: 02
        -1
        Just don’t gnaw it to the size of Nimitz

        In the USSR, the correct concept was an air defense / plo aircraft carrier with limited strike capabilities. And rightly so, because the aircraft carrier against the coast is ridiculous. All for which the NKs are generally needed is to deploy their nuclear submarines, which will nightmare both communications and naval bases and ports and coastal infrastructure

        If it's not really Papuans with bows
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 13: 44
          +1
          Well, that's just Nimitz this is close to the optimum. In fact, a regiment of interceptors and a regiment of attack aircraft can be on it, plus SDRLO and VTA.

          It is clear that we cannot master this, but nevertheless, it is precisely such an aircraft carrier that is what we should strive for.
          1. Foxnova
            Foxnova 22 February 2021 14: 04
            -3
            Nimitz is oversized due to the fact that he was loaded with the functions of hitting the shore. That he cannot do anything effectively.

            A new iteration of Ulyanovsk with the replacement of attack missiles with air defense enhancements is what you need.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 February 2021 18: 18
              +1
              Well, the difference between Ulyanovsk and Nimitz when used as intended, to put it mildly, is not in favor of Ulyanovsk.
              1. Foxnova
                Foxnova 22 February 2021 19: 06
                0
                It depends on what purpose we are talking about.

                To put it mildly, the Su 33 was better than the f18 in terms of fighting enemy aircraft. And the ships were supposed to sink nuclear submarines and missile cruisers. Plus, it was not necessary to cover the aircraft carrier itself so tightly due to the developed air defense
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 19: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: FoxNova
                  It depends on what purpose we are talking about.

                  About air defense. Ulyanovsk loses here to Nimitz.
                  Quote: FoxNova
                  Nimitz is oversized due to the fact that he was loaded with the functions of hitting the shore. That he cannot do anything effectively.

                  How many years did he perform effectively - and suddenly - he cannot. Oh well.
                  1. Foxnova
                    Foxnova 22 February 2021 20: 10
                    0
                    And when did Nimitz effectively operate along the coast?

                    Serbia would not be able to cope there without an aircraft carrier.
                    Desert Storm? Similarly 6 aug 15% contribution

                    Just look at f15 and f18 and it becomes obvious
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 20: 16
                      +4
                      Quote: FoxNova
                      And when did Nimitz effectively operate along the coast?

                      Vietnam, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia ... Yes, everywhere, in general.
                      Quote: FoxNova
                      Just look at f15 and f18 and it becomes obvious

                      laughing
                      Obviously - what? :)))) Maybe, for a change, let's remember that the heaviest fighter of the fourth generation of the United States is the carrier-based F14 Tomcat?
                      1. Foxnova
                        Foxnova 22 February 2021 20: 20
                        0
                        F14 which generally could not work normally on the ground. Therefore, I had to take another f18 into service.

                        15% here is the entire contribution of 6 Augs to Desert Storm
                        18k departures versus 96k air force departures
                        Considering that there were such local monsters as f111 without 2k tons of bombs from aircraft carriers would not have done

                        If you need a hammer, order su34 or f15, if a scalpel, then caliber or tomahawk. Why would you need f18 above the ground, I can't imagine
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        23 February 2021 00: 29
                        0
                        And if there are no airfields? And if the attacked country is a strip of land along the coast, like Vietnam? And if you need to destroy surface targets thousands of kilometers from the coast? And in the same place to ensure the landing?
                        The aircraft carrier is versatile.
                        And the best of the two is the one that is more versatile.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 23 February 2021 07: 12
                        0
                        And if there are no airfields?

                        In such conditions, a war with a technically advanced enemy is impossible. Invasion forces will die without air support

                        AB is not a replacement for air bases
                        And if the attacked country is a strip of land along the coast, like Vietnam?

                        Air Force will fly from AB Cam Ranh and airfields in neighboring Thailand
                        And if you need to destroy surface targets thousands of kilometers from the coast?

                        This is the ambition of a superpower

                        Which always has allies and hundreds of air bases around the world
                        The aircraft carrier is versatile.

                        Over the past 70 years, the advantages of AB have never been confirmed in practice.
                      4. Foxnova
                        Foxnova 23 February 2021 07: 55
                        0
                        I completely agree. If this is a thin strip of land along the 956 it will be much more effective in terms of fire support for the landing.
                      5. timokhin-aa
                        23 February 2021 12: 36
                        0
                        In such conditions, a war with a technically advanced enemy is impossible. Invasion forces will die without air support


                        Well, and at least destroy the enemy's fleet? By the way, you are missing too much about "impossible". During WWII in the Pacific, it turned out to be very possible, for the Britons in the Falklands too.

                        Air Force will fly from AB Cam Ranh and airfields in neighboring Thailand


                        They flew with the Americans. Only the flight time from aircraft carriers to Yankee and Dixie Station was much less, weird, right?

                        This is the ambition of a superpower

                        Which always has allies and hundreds of air bases around the world


                        This is a cruel reality in which we may find ourselves even tomorrow.

                        Over the past 70 years, the advantages of AB have never been confirmed in practice.


                        It's just not true, completely.
                      6. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 23 February 2021 20: 25
                        -1
                        Well, and at least destroy the enemy's fleet?

                        Why break it. If you are not going to continue the war on foreign shores. Where you have no allies, no chance of victory

                        For an action of intimidation, it is enough to have a CD on military facilities near the capital
                        Britons in the Falklands too.

                        The enemy of the Britons had 5 PKR for the entire theater of operations
                        Pacific war is a completely different era
                        Only the flight time from aircraft carriers to Yankee and Dixie Station was much less, weird, right?

                        Take a look at this map

                        And yes, Vietnam, which is always cited as an example, is a bad example. Even if the Air Force failed to win such a war, what could the aircraft carriers alone, against the "strip of land along the coast"?

                        The whole price of fairy tales about the versatility and replacement of coastal airfields
                        This is a cruel reality in which we may find ourselves even tomorrow.

                        This is a pseudoscientific slogan

                        Waving weapons in the open with no superpower status, no superpower economy and no allies, okay
                      7. timokhin-aa
                        24 February 2021 10: 34
                        +2
                        Why break it. If you are not going to continue the war on foreign shores.


                        You see what's the matter. People who come to kill you will not ask if you are ready to repel an attack or not. It doesn't matter where we are going to do something, whether we have allies and whether we are a superpower.
                        Nobody will ask us about this.

                        Take a look at this map


                        This map reflects only the raids on the north of Vietnam, to which everything was not limited. It is incomplete, this map, Yankee and Dixie points are also inaccurately shown.
                        Oh well.

                        If you don't like Vietnam, take Korea. Who took out the NAP there when the South Koreans lost almost all of their territory?

                        Waving weapons in the open with no superpower status, no superpower economy and no allies, okay


                        We will not choose the moment when it will be necessary to fight, alas.
                      8. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 24 February 2021 11: 32
                        -2
                        People who come to kill you will not ask

                        So, stop, re-read the comments again
                        It was about a landing operation on foreign shores.

                        Russia received no threats from other continents
                        We discuss attacking others
                        This map only reflects raids to the north.

                        It reflects everything correctly, your past flight time argument is untenable
                        take Korea

                        The era of piston aviation
                        Are more recent examples over?
                        We will not choose the moment when it will be necessary to fight, alas.

                        No one will force the RF Armed Forces to go to war in another part of the world, except for the government and the General Staff. And in modern conditions, this would be a very stupid decision.
                      9. timokhin-aa
                        24 February 2021 12: 39
                        +1
                        No one will force the RF Armed Forces to go to war in another part of the world, except for the government and the General Staff.


                        This is a very big mistake to think so.
                      10. Foxnova
                        Foxnova 24 February 2021 17: 24
                        0
                        It's a mistake to think that an aircraft carrier is what our extremely coastal fleet needs.

                        If you love WWII so much, look at the successes of not Germany and their pl.

                        The balance of power for us now is even worse than for them then.

                        Look at the non-aircraft carrier fleet of China and at what stage they started building aircraft carriers.
              2. Foxnova
                Foxnova 24 February 2021 17: 18
                +1
                Fleet about horror does not shore. In the Falklands, you don't have to wishful thinking. Britam there is a pearl for all the money. If not for the fuses that worked in 30 if not less cases. If there were not 5 pieces, but 10 or 15, everything would have ended differently.
              3. timokhin-aa
                24 February 2021 17: 46
                0
                And if the Britons had radar and air defense systems on ships, how would it end?
              4. Foxnova
                Foxnova 24 February 2021 19: 05
                0
                Exactly the same. The radars did not work there because they were turned off for good satellite communication. The fact that zrk is shit is a problem of zrk.
                There was already a fort in the union at that time

                Well, how to compare the 3rd fleet in the world with Argentina is some kind of shame
      2. Foxnova
        Foxnova 23 February 2021 07: 53
        0
        How long have we attacked something without ground airfields?

        There are no airfields. You can only bomb the Papuans. Once again, we look at the ltx f18 during takeoff from an aircraft carrier and on the Su 35, f15
        And everything becomes clear. And also on the number of sorties that an aircraft carrier and a conventional air force base can provide.
        Vitality. Again, as shown by Syria, after more than 100 cruise missiles, the base can operate an aircraft carrier?
        The last time it was during WWII and these were the old islands. Which were ironed by the destroyers battleships and cruisers.

        Vietnam was bombed from airfields in southern Vietnam and neighboring Thailand.

        Before the desert storm, all the neighboring airfields were simply packed with planes. They even chased strategists.

        Libya planes drove with refueling and Charles de Gaulle did not appear.
      3. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 February 2021 08: 27
        -1
        Libya planes drove with refueling and Charles de Gaulle did not appear.

        I will insert a remark here

        SDG arranged a photo session there. It is strange that not a single nimitz showed up

        I do not remember the details of refueling and the participation of aircraft from AB Istres, but there, opposite the island of Crete, the British airbase Saud Bay, they did not fly. 300 km over the bay in a straight line, 20 minutes flight
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 February 2021 15: 29
    0
    Quote: FoxNova
    And rightly so, because the aircraft carrier against the coast is ridiculous. All for which the NKs are generally needed is to deploy their nuclear submarines, which will nightmare both communications and naval bases and ports and coastal infrastructure

    If it's not really Papuans with bows

    Will not work. If these are not exactly Papuans with bows, then PLO planes or helicopters will soon arrive for the nuclear submarine. And in the end, you have to win air supremacy, which is somewhat ... problematic for the nuclear submarine.
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 22 February 2021 20: 35
    -2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    No, this is not true. A full-fledged aircraft carrier will ALWAYS be stronger.
    Let's remember our disagreements on this issue and be patient and see who is right ?! True, we will have to wait a few years, but on the other hand, we have a favorite site, and we are in no hurry! hi
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 23 February 2021 00: 09
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    ... A full-fledged aircraft carrier will ALWAYS be stronger.

    in the sense of stronger - a) in the building
    b) in service
    than "imaginary aircraft carrier TAVKR", - from UAV or VTOL (the latter is expensive, mean modern trends lean towards UAVs) ... what
  • Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 22 February 2021 15: 49
    -1
    Quote: Observer2014
    ... It is precisely built on this principle and whether the scheme is convenient for you and should look like a strike aircraft carrier of the future.

    what nonsense .... what
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 17
    0
    And UAVs, which need less space in the hangar. It is precisely built on this principle and whether the scheme is convenient for you and should look like a strike aircraft carrier of the future.
    while it is still better to have on TAVKR (s) at least - up to 6-8 units. VTOL devices with percussion functionality to expand the capabilities of the UAV!
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 23 February 2021 04: 43
    0
    Are you laughing? Back in the USSR, they looked at these crafts and cursed
  • mark1
    mark1 22 February 2021 08: 17
    0
    The Yak-38, of course, was not a competitor to the Sea Harrier, so the article should mostly blame Yakovlev's design bureau (although I am sure that they did everything they could in the conditions of the time) But now the situation is somewhat different - The Yak-141 has already surpassed it somewhere, caught up with the Sea Harrier somewhere, that is, there is reason to think that the new developments will be somewhere on the "+ -" F-35B level. A question about the carrier - naturally built UDC and container ships (as an option "Sevmorput")
    The article is good, interesting +
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 11: 12
      -6
      Yak-38, of course, "Sea Harrier" alas and was not a competitor


      He was quite himself. See my past articles on the topic.
      And in shock missions, the Yak-38M simply surpassed the Harriers.
      1. mark1
        mark1 22 February 2021 11: 50
        +1
        Check again, especially in comparison with the AV-8A.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 13: 45
          0
          This is the next generation of Harriers, after 1987. And before?
          1. mark1
            mark1 22 February 2021 13: 51
            0
            And before it was not bad at all (very)
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 February 2021 13: 56
              -1
              Until 1987, the best shock VTOL aircraft in the world was the Yak-38M.
              And try to refute this.
              1. Liam
                Liam 22 February 2021 14: 10
                -5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Until 1987, the best attack VTOL aircraft in the world was the Yak-38M

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And try to refute it

                This is not refuted.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 February 2021 18: 15
                  0
                  I'm trying to remember the case that you wrote something sane and I can't.
                  You make sense in the comments inversely proportional to the pathos.
                  Did your mom over-praise you as a child?
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 22 February 2021 18: 44
                    +2
                    I'll try simpler so that you understand.
                    The name of this painting, which is very famous among cultural people, is the Dream of Reason gives rise to monsters.
                    The second part of the commentary is not refuted because cast in granite...
                    Have you mastered it now?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 February 2021 18: 54
                      +2
                      I then master everything, only the meaning in your heaps, which you leave here, does not increase from this.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 22 February 2021 19: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        I then master everything

                        Not really. The statement that the underdeck disabled Yak-38 M is the best in the world cannot be explained by polemical fervor, or even by a hangover syndrome, only by the sleep of the mind. This is an insult to the intellect of anyone who is minimally familiar with the history of the pepelats. So it is deservedly possible cast in granite
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 19: 33
                        0
                        This is an insult to the intellect of anyone who is minimally familiar with the history of the pepelats.


                        You write as if you are familiar with this story.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 19: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Liam
                        The statement that the underdecked disabled Yak-38 M is the best in the world

                        Not the best in the world, but
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Until 1987, the best shock VTOL aircraft

                        Will we refute, or will we build our eyes, as usual?
            2. mark1
              mark1 22 February 2021 14: 15
              +1
              What a gamble you are ... By God, fiddling with tables and I'm too lazy to insert here. Compare the first flight of the AV-8A in 1970 and the Yak-38M, respectively, 1983, in the series since 1985 (and does it make sense - 85-87 years)
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 22 February 2021 14: 40
                +1
                it was sarcasm tongue
                1. mark1
                  mark1 22 February 2021 14: 43
                  -3
                  Well then - hee hee ...
              2. timokhin-aa
                22 February 2021 18: 14
                -1
                Not 1970, but 1978. And they finished it until 1985.

                So, as the Americans say, check your facts.
                1. mark1
                  mark1 22 February 2021 18: 16
                  0
                  Don't be trifles, Kisa! I think bargaining is not appropriate here ...
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    22 February 2021 18: 44
                    0
                    On the merits - the first American full-fledged and brought to the point of being able to be used without restrictions in US military operations was the AV-8B, the first VTOL that actually made us - the AV-8B + modified for night use.
                    1. mark1
                      mark1 22 February 2021 18: 49
                      +1
                      Here you have Alexander (sorry I don’t know the middle name) just a talent for bickering. Well, even so (and this is a little bit wrong) .. well, what does it change? Purely out of respect for you, I answer ...
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      22 February 2021 18: 53
                      -1
                      You started the argument.
                      Just estimate the combat radius of the Harrier Gr1 with four bombs and no PTB, then compare with the Yak-38M.
                      Or, alternatively, the same thing with vertical takeoff, for example, with a ton of combat load.
                      A WTO with the ability to aim without ground posts appeared only on Gr. 3 and only in the form of bombs.
                      Etc.
                    3. Sergey Sfiedu
                      Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 19: 33
                      0
                      By the end of the 3s GR.70 became the main SVP, and you remember all GR.1. And the laser rangefinder-target designator, which greatly increased the accuracy of bombing, and which GR.3 had, the Yakovlev design bureau did not deign to put on the Yak-38M. GR.3 almost always flew with PTB, and the Yak-38 and even the Yak-38M PTB simply did not have (the former could not carry, for the latter they were not delivered). And most importantly, the GR.3 did not take off vertically on combat missions. They had a normal wing, due to which they made excellent use of a short take-off run. Well, everyone knows what kind of invalid wing the Yak-38 had. Therefore, it is useless to appeal to vertical takeoff. And finally, in order for the Yak-38 to do at least something, it had to be made much larger and heavier than the Harrier. You say that the GR / 3 could only carry bombs from high-precision weapons? And what about the Yak-38? Just do not paint about the miraculous X-23 / 25mr, which are outdated even before their birth. In the West, the uselessness of similar products was understood during the Vietnam War.
        2. Lozovik
          Lozovik 22 February 2021 18: 30
          +4
          The GR.3 has a Ferranti sighting and navigation system on board.
          The navigation system allows for automatic flight (including low-altitude flight) along a route with 7 preset PPMs. The error in determining the coordinates is no more than 2 km. To display navigation information, there is a map tablet with the ability to download up to 1800 km² of maps.
          The sighting system provides detection and illumination of ground targets (when using UAB) within a cone with an apex angle of 20 °, bombing and firing from a cannon and NAR with continuous angular correction.
          All flight information and information about the target is displayed on the HUD.

          And the Yak-38M only has a rifle scope with a radio range finder.
          1. timokhin-aa
            22 February 2021 18: 37
            0
            Delta-NG is still in the container. With an attachment in the form of X-23. How about this?
            Plus, you can compare the list of unguided weapons.
            And also look at the capabilities of both aircraft WITHOUT PTB.
            1. Lozovik
              Lozovik 22 February 2021 18: 44
              +2
              A missile with a range of 8 km and a joystick control?
              1. timokhin-aa
                22 February 2021 18: 46
                -1
                Well, like yes.
                How did your opponents have it at that time? if the Gr3 had at least a laser rangefinder-designator, then for the rest, the Harriers had to be a man with an emitter next to the target to land. And only then was it possible to apply something highly precise.
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 19: 43
                  0
                  Opponents abandoned Bullpups in the early 70s due to their complete uselessness. And the laser rangefinder was used primarily not to illuminate targets, but to improve the accuracy of bombing with conventional bombs.
                2. Lozovik
                  Lozovik 24 February 2021 22: 27
                  0
                  Is the effectiveness of combat use against ground targets determined only by the presence of radio command-guided missiles? Let me tell you a secret, flying is much more important.

                  I can't tell you about the range, because I do not have the documents necessary for the calculation.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 22 February 2021 12: 04
    +2
    it is necessary at the Yakovlev design bureau (although I am sure that they did everything they could in the conditions of that time)
    I'm not sure here. The Yak-38 had many strange, let's say, technical solutions. For example, the nozzles in the shape of the letter si were clearly ripped off from Harrier's - but there simply could not be another solution (one engine with 4 nozzles placed symmetrically with respect to the CM). The Yak-38 did not need this, later on the Yak-41 was installed engine with a rotary afterburner in 1 plane. But the yak engine lost about 20% of thrust due to all these forks and bends (I write from memory, so I could be wrong).
    1. mark1
      mark1 22 February 2021 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: sivuch
      later, the Yak-41 was equipped with an engine with a rotary afterburner in 1 plane

      Well, yes, that's right. Only to this decision it was necessary to go a certain way (after all, you can't reach everything right away with your mind. Although you need to strive for this)
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 22 February 2021 13: 01
        +3
        The talent of a designer consists in making the right decision right away, for which amateurs will not scold in half a century.
        1. mark1
          mark1 22 February 2021 13: 04
          +4
          This is more than a talent - it is a genius. This is already to God.
        2. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 18: 57
          +2
          It is still necessary to master the manufacture of such a nozzle. This is also not an easy question. Let me remind you that Yak-41/141 Yakovlev's firm DIDN'T DO IT.
          And they had very little time to create the Yak-36M, which later became the Yak-38, and the solution for vertical thrust had to be simple.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 23 February 2021 10: 51
            0
            I'm not talking about the rotary afterburner on the Yak-41. Completed it or not in this case does not matter. I mean that it was possible not to branch out into 2 nozzles and their output to the outside in the manner of Harrier. Sydney Kamm at least took advantage of the situation and put on a lightweight bicycle chassis.
            To make a simple turn back and down, as on the Yak-36 or Yak-41 - on the contrary, a simpler design. And the loss of traction would be avoided and would save on weight.
            A thin supersonic wing - do you need it? D-Cancers Americans (also sarcasm) generally used a supercritical profile at 8V.
            I am not talking about such trifles as a brake parachute on a deck or an ancient sight as a mammoth waste.
            By the way, I think you have seen the Yak-41 model in the version with PGO? At the base, it was said that in Yakovlev's design bureau, simply no one could cheat such an aircraft.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 22 February 2021 21: 27
    0
    Yak-38, of course, "Sea Harrier" alas and was not a competitor
    well, how to say .., the reality is:
    Washington. According to a statement by the Navy, two Soviet vertically taking off fighters armed with missiles intercepted two American aircraft from
    aircraft carrier Eisenhower in the northern Arabian Sea. Then, briefly, we intercepted Tomcat and Corsair 2. This is the first time that Soviet aircraft have operated with air-to-air missiles.
    This is the first time ...
    wink So, the concept worked and could get a worthy continuation already in the 21st century!
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 19: 47
      -1
      Intercepted - ridiculous. In wartime, I would have watched the Yak-38 intercept the Tomcat. Or "Corsair" with "Harpoons".
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 24 February 2021 19: 57
        0
        Intercepted - ridiculous. In wartime, I would have watched the Yak-38 intercept the Tomcat. Or "Corsair" with "Harpoons".
        And what's funny, there is no ordinary finger here !? Interceptions are different, but if you don't know about it, okay ... it happens!
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 20: 10
          -2
          Well, let's not be clever. In peacetime, "Tomcat" allowed the Yak-38 to approach itself, wanted to photograph a plane or ship, that's all. It has a firing range of "Phoenix" about the same as the range of the Yak, and the speed of the F-14 is twice as high, and the radar can track as many as 24 Yaks at a distance of up to 160 km, while the Yak has no radar at all, about the range. I am silent.
          1. Intruder
            Intruder 24 February 2021 22: 54
            0
            In peacetime "Tomcat" allowed the Yak-38 to approach itself, wanted to photograph a plane or ship, that's all. Its firing range "Phoenix" is about the same as the range of the Yak, and the speed of the F-14 is twice as high, and the radar can track as many as 24 Yaks at a distance of up to 160 km, and the Yak has no radar at all, about the range. I am silent.
            well ... it is possible that in wartime it would have been a Yak-39 or 38M and by launching the same R-73 airborne missile system with target illumination, what is not an interception with the defeat of an air target !? And the range with a short take-off would be compensated ... although these are all theories, as in fact, no one will know, it has remained in the past ... in another century and in another country!
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 25 February 2021 19: 23
              0
              Yes, even the Yak-39 or even the Yak-141. Even with a running start. Even with the P-27 and P-73 on the Yak-141. If used correctly, the same Hornets would have overwhelmed them all before the Yaks could use their weapons. The SCVVP of those generations is for fighting naked-assed blacks or patrol aircraft without a fighter escort. Which, by the way, is also important.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 25 February 2021 20: 30
                0
                Yes, even the Yak-39 or even the Yak-141. Even with a running start. Even with the P-27 and P-73 on the Yak-141. If used correctly, the same Hornets would have overwhelmed them all before the Yaks could use their weapons.
                this is a bold statement, bravo !!!
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 22 February 2021 08: 38
    0
    There was not enough spirit, or knowledge, but immediately after the war in the USSR it was necessary to build exactly aircraft carriers, at least 2 ships, and create aircraft for them similar to the American one. Exploit them to the maximum, gain experience in this complex business. Over time, build new, more advanced aircraft carriers to replace the first generation of aircraft carriers, and transfer the old ones into training ones! Indeed, without aircraft carriers, our fleet will forever be "under-fleet"; there are many places in the world where an aircraft carrier formation will represent the interests of Russia. And I consider all statements like "why do we need aircraft carriers, we are a land country" as an attempt to deprive Russia of the natural process of development of our Naval Ocean Fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 11: 13
      0
      There was not enough spirit, or knowledge, but immediately after the war in the USSR it was necessary to build exactly aircraft carriers, at least 2 ships, and create aircraft for them similar to the American one. Exploit them to the maximum, gain experience in this complex business


      Kuznetsov wanted to do just that and the project was quite well developed - Project 85
      1. Foxnova
        Foxnova 22 February 2021 13: 10
        +2
        The only question is where is the money.
        After the war, there was a missile nuclear project that ate up all that little. And it is obvious that a nuclear bomb was needed more than an aircraft carrier.
        Look at what was built after the war. The cruisers were hit and the destroyers. And what the NATO bloc had. An immeasurable gap in strength
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 13: 43
          0
          Well, Comrade Stalin's plans were completely different. And the 85th would not be very expensive.
          1. Foxnova
            Foxnova 22 February 2021 14: 05
            +1
            Everyone knows that Stalin loved heavy cruisers.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 14: 51
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the 85th would not be very expensive.

            well, two pay tongue
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 February 2021 15: 33
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              well, two pay

              Then the fleet had something to save on - for example, to reduce the construction of artillery ships of slightly altered pre-war projects.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 24 February 2021 18: 29
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                to reduce the construction of artillery ships of slightly altered pre-war projects.

                have already discussed, if the shipbuilding industry could only make a few of these "converted" ships for the fleet, then talking about AV is stupid .. these ships would not have done, so there would have been none at all, only wooden sea hunters would have remained ... post-war devastation, hunger , cards
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 14: 54
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      there are a lot of places in the world where an aircraft carrier will represent the interests of Russia

      in more detail more specific please, the list in the studio! and also the cost of the hike .... its result ..... and a list of means of implementation, "representing the interests of the Russian Federation", do not offer a demonstration of the flag because only the owners of telescopes can view the flag from the shore tongue
    3. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 23 February 2021 00: 36
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      ... And all statements like "why do we need aircraft carriers, we are a land country" I consider an attempt to deprive Russia the natural development process of our Navy.
      belay well, when will it be - "twenty five plus" first ranksnot less than 22350 or 1155 modernized, in volumes no less than "Shaposhnikov", talk about it again (!), for while in each of the three main (SF, Pacific Fleet, Black Sea Fleet), on the formation of a normal AUG, - "pennants" will not be enough ... ?! yes
      Well, what would this one, - the natural process of development of our Navy, even became noticeable ... winked but so far it only looks like - "eternal process", under the words of Rahman ... what
      Over the last three or four years (-) four BOD 1155 and a pair of 956 ... and in (+) only two 22350 and "Hat" ....? !!! .... crying and you about "development process ..." belay
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 08: 43
    +3
    a very interesting article .... it's sad to read about the efforts spent on the dead-end branch, it is clear that vertical take-off was initially a mistake, but "if they have Hariera, then we need it" .... but it turned out a helicopter. helicopters would have done the same ..... The second saddened, the repetition of the well-known rejection of airplanes with black boots, and it is sad that right now we are witnessing not only rejection, but complete denial of coastal aviation; But at the same time, they laid two UDCs and dream of unthinkably useless surface monsters, and the role of the NK is now nothing more than an ASW of the coastal zone, and despite the fact that coastal PLO aircraft are more effective, but they are not planned ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 22 February 2021 09: 40
      +3
      UDC are sharpened for helicopters that will provide landing and support for the landing. We have helicopters for this task, therefore, I personally do not see insurmountable obstacles to the realization of the dream of UDC
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 10: 34
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        obstacles to realizing the dream of UDC

        why are they? they have no tasks and no escort, for the landing the best is Dugong, Serna, but as a last resort the large landing craft (because they already exist) ..... "let's better build an aeroplane and fly away to Edren Fena"
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 22 February 2021 11: 41
          +3
          Uh-huh, but landing a tactical assault inland for, for example, capturing a bridge? How about fire support? Helicopters with UDC will provide landing operations, which is bad. Moreover, the helicopters are directly subordinate to the landing force, there is no need to involve aviation from the outside and establish cooperation. That is, it improves flexibility in dealing with disembarkation problems. request
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 14: 39
            -2
            Quote: Rurikovich
            tactical landing

            to tactical, that is, close to their ground forces and only close! because the landing force does not have its own rear, supplies of provisions and ammunition, fuel, but is called upon to support the attack of ground forces by strikes into the rear of the enemy, where are the helicopters and support aircraft from? it is clear that from the coastal airfields of the ground forces, and from where else? Why carry them by sea then unmasking the landing? and even about the nonsense called over-the-horizon landing, I generally keep quiet
      2. timokhin-aa
        22 February 2021 11: 15
        +4
        We have NO landing helicopters in production. And this is an acute problem. I have an article about this written and is "hanging" on moderation, it will be released soon, maybe even tomorrow in the "Aviation" section.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 22 February 2021 11: 48
          +3
          At least at least "Katrana" is there to support .... And then at least something. But the amphibious assault would increase the range of decision-making on the landing.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 14: 45
          -2
          Alexander, you are wrong again, you are wrong there are landing helicopters and for a long time and many .......... 26 According to the customer's requirements, the helicopter had to carry loads weighing up to 20 tons over a distance of 400 km with a static ceiling of more than 1500 m. ...... mi8 passenger helicopter with 28 seats. Has rectangular windows.
          1. timokhin-aa
            22 February 2021 18: 12
            +3
            Vladimir, this is already a clinical case. Is this a Mi-26, a shipborne assault helicopter?
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 20: 50
              -1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              ship landing helicopter

              and where did you get it? I did not write this, and besides, you know that I am fundamentally and consistently against the UDC, while mi26 and mi 8 can take off from the ground and land troops, including on the coast ... For the Mi-26 helicopter takeoff and landing by helicopter without using the influence of the earth at H = 0-1000 m is 80x50 m, while the size of the planned working area should be at least 20x20 meters. ..... so if you wish, mi26 takes off from a dry cargo ship in a calm, well, mi8, too, will not be able to take off from the UDC according to your opinion? Dimensions and layout
              Dimensions of helicopter landing pads

              1 - landing area: for the Mi-8 50x50 m, for the Mi-26 50x80 m; 2 - the working area of ​​the landing site is divided: for the Mi-8 20x20 m, for the Mi-26 25x25 m; 3 - marked with an orange (red) truncated cone (prism) or white flags (in summer), red (in winter). When landing at night with four white (red) lights
              1. timokhin-aa
                23 February 2021 00: 31
                0
                But it was about a shipborne landing helicopter, Vladimir.
                In addition, the landing can be very far beyond the tactical radius of the Mi-26.
                At one time I had to land in Somalia. Have you forgotten?
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 23 February 2021 09: 11
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But it was about a ship's landing helicopter,

                  a journalist should express his thoughts more clearly for this there are adjectives, you used the word "shipborne" for the first time now everything has cleared up ... although I don't see any problems in converting mi8 into a ship version.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    23 February 2021 12: 38
                    0
                    although I don't see any problems in converting the mi8 to the ship version.


                    People like you are always very simple.
  • Foxnova
    Foxnova 22 February 2021 09: 21
    -1
    Naval Aviation Your cap is only needed at sea.

    Desert Storm showed that it was practically useless against the shore.

    Until we go out into the open ocean, naval aviation in the form that the United States has it, we do not need it because it is expensive
    1. Runway
      Runway 22 February 2021 10: 53
      +4
      It will not work out into the ocean for many reasons. BMZ remains. Which is in some way covered by the VKS (in this "conservatory" things are also not a marshmallow, except for the Moscow-CPR grouping).
      It is in the Arbat VO that they must decide which priority should be given - steamers or airplanes.
      Project 22800 = 2 Su-34 (+, - half a lap). The steamer drags the 8 URP (caliber / onyx). 2 airplanes in total 12 X-35 (y). The KBE of a steamer / airplanes for the same admirals and other "happy" ones is not obvious ...
      1. Foxnova
        Foxnova 22 February 2021 13: 07
        +2
        The question why we, unlike the Indians, do not cling to onyx remains open
        1. Runway
          Runway 22 February 2021 13: 20
          +1
          Theory and texture ... bayay what we could ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            22 February 2021 13: 46
            +3
            We can but don't.
            1. Runway
              Runway 22 February 2021 14: 05
              +3
              Well, so we do MRK with all sorts of "patrollers" (how much is in "ducklings" - xs, but for me it is better to have an air push of "ducklings" to support naval "pants" than "patrol corps").
  • clerk
    clerk 22 February 2021 09: 24
    -2
    A strange article - an interesting excursion into history, but the conclusion is about nothing. Which is completely uncharacteristic for Klimov.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 11: 37
      0
      Quote: clerk
      and the conclusion is about nothing

      ??? Just the conclusion - very much about what.
      1. clerk
        clerk 22 February 2021 11: 38
        +4
        I didn't take it away. If it does not make it difficult - voice what you understood?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 February 2021 16: 06
          +1
          Quote: clerk
          If it does not make it difficult - voice what you understood?

          If you do not take the historical part, the conclusions on which, as I understand it, do not cause you any questions, then the main conclusion of the article is that how the naval aviation was in the stepdaughters of the Navy, and today this relationship is nowhere worse.
          Simply put, the command of the fleet does not understand the role and place of aviation in the fleet, and does not make efforts to prepare this aviation for real combat missions
          1. clerk
            clerk 23 February 2021 12: 54
            0
            I believe that the author distorted a little - the state of naval aviation corresponds to the sad state of the fleet as a whole. If we had numerous squadrons without aircraft carrier ships, I would have shared his indignation, and so .... (waved his hand) ..
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 February 2021 07: 51
              0
              Quote: clerk
              I believe that the author distorted a little - the state of naval aviation corresponds to the sad state of the fleet as a whole.

              It's worse there. In the USSR, disregard for aviation also took place, but there was enough money for everyone, so everything worked out more or less. And when the fleet was driven into the narrow limits of current budgets, they began to save on naval aviation in the first place. Transferring it to the Aerospace Forces is not from a good life, this is absurd from the point of view of operational art, but at least the materiel is saved and the pilots will receive their raid
              1. clerk
                clerk 24 February 2021 11: 16
                0
                I completely agree. Due to the general weakness, in essence of the coastal fleet, there is no point in maintaining unnecessary managerial links.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 February 2021 11: 43
                  0
                  Quote: clerk
                  Due to the general weakness of the coastal fleet, there is no point in retaining unnecessary managerial links.

                  It makes sense to preserve naval aviation, the experience of solving naval tasks by the Air Force is negative around the world
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 22 February 2021 09: 56
    +4
    The material is, as always, a plus. Ships are made for weapons, therefore, if the weapon itself turned out to be useless, then there is no need to scold the ships of Project 1143 themselves. In any case, by the 80s the understanding came that it is impossible to fulfill even vital tasks without aviation. Therefore, they went to the aircraft carriers. Truth in its own way. After all, we had to fight both "black boots" and ideology, when aircraft carriers were declared a weapon of aggression. The country lacked literally ten years, then the atomic "Ulyanovsk", and the same current "Kuznetsov" with "Varyag" would have been in service. Then the problem of air cover for the SSBN deployment area was solved.
    But this understanding went through the unsuccessful Yak-38, which killed time and resources.
    "Vikramaditya" showed the possibility of upgrading Project 1143 for normal aircraft. But the 90s decided differently. Ships in China in the form of entertainment centers, the same "Gorshkov" in India, and we lament about the lack of naval aviation ... For, as stated, our missile carriers can shoot from the pier ... Curtain ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 10: 40
      -4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Then the problem of air cover for the SSBN deployment area was solved.

      The problem of air cover for the RPKSN is important, but what will you cover the aircraft carriers with? it turns out sheer stupidity, in order to solve a simple and realistically feasible task (covering SSBNs), we begin a difficult and practically impracticable task (bringing AB into the open sea and covering it there with dozens of frigates) .... isn't it easier to cover the SSBN exit with TU22 and TU160 aircraft? and on the near approaches of the coastal-based SU, and not to unmask the missile attack ships with aircraft carriers.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 February 2021 11: 28
        +5
        Uh-huh. And how many sorties do you need to make to cover SSBNs along the entire route? And despite the fact that outside the coverage zone of the coastal Su Tu22 and Tu160 (I am interested in your idea of ​​an ASW by a strategist) they can meet with aircraft carriers and consumers who will instantly destroy them. The aircraft carrier as part of the formation ensures the search and detection of enemy submarines along the entire route and the entire patrol area. It also provides air cover from enemy anti-submarine aircraft. Those. and Pl is looking for aircraft capable of finding our Pl drives. This is why aircraft carriers were created for a normal aircraft, because the Yak38 could not perform the functions of an aircraft carrier cover.
        In the USSR, this was understood in the 80s. Now, with the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the American MPSS, our SSBNs will be at gunpoint immediately upon leaving the Avacha Bay. The Union understood this. Therefore, they began to build aircraft carriers. For it is necessary not only to ensure a safe exit from the base, it is necessary to provide cover during the entire patrol from all possible threats. Everything is more complicated than you think ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 15: 01
          -3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          you need to provide cover during the entire patrol from all possible threats. Everything is more complicated than you think ...

          your ancestral mistake is obvious and the mistake of all AV lovers trying to attach unnecessary AB to the necessary SSBNs and thus cling to the fact that the deployment areas (not to be confused with coastal areas near the bases) SSBNs are under the ice ... how will you drive AB and a large fleet there support and why? And if you accompany the SSBN with an aircraft carrier, then ... all its secrecy will be revealed. tongue
          1. timokhin-aa
            23 February 2021 00: 33
            +3
            And so to cling to, in that the deployment areas (not to be confused with coastal areas near the bases) SSBNs are under the ice ...


            And the transitions to these areas are not under the ice.
            It is not necessary to drive AV "there", it must be used to restrain the actions of enemy air and surface forces, which the enemy, WITHOUT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, could throw on anti-submarine operations and their support.

            You have already chewed it here more than once.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 23 February 2021 09: 20
              0
              educational program ... The distance between Novaya Zemlya and Murmansk is 2072 kilometers ... so the ice-free zone is well controlled by coast-based front-line aviation, which we have been writing for a long time that we need a zone within a radius of 2500 km from the base, taking into account tu22 it can be effectively and controlled by coastal aviation by corvettes and frigates, there is no need for an AV there. Let's compare the cost of AB and no less effective connection from one PLO frigate and a TU22 flight?
              1. timokhin-aa
                23 February 2021 12: 39
                0
                There is a need for AB in the Norwegian Sea, so that all these corvettes are not melted along with the protected submarines, and that a handful of airfields of basic aviation are not plowed up with cruise missiles from a safe distance.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 23 February 2021 14: 36
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  from a safe distance

                  do you mean from Kirkenes? for its elimination, AV does not need enough ground missile systems
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    24 February 2021 09: 29
                    0
                    No, Vladimir, remember the tactics if you actually served in the Navy. I didn't mean Kirkenes at all.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 24 February 2021 18: 23
                      0
                      why bother NATO with NK if they have Kirkeknes?
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 15: 09
          -5
          Quote: Rurikovich
          The aircraft carrier as part of the formation provides search and detection of enemy submarines along the entire route and the entire patrol area

          if you are going to carry out an ASW with an aircraft carrier ... how are you going to distinguish your nuclear submarine from someone else's? PLO is the prerogative of the frigate with its PLO helicopter and means of recognition and destruction of submarines, it does not need AV. Moreover, your idea to use the Tu160 for PLO does not stand up to criticism, the TU 160 can destroy surface and coastal targets, for example, just one TU160 without entering the enemy's air defense zone and the shoulder of his carrier-based aircraft can destroy an entire enemy fleet with its pair of AB and numerous guard ships, and BE200 is recommended for PLO.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 22 February 2021 15: 23
            +2
            Do not shift from a sore head to a healthy one - you suggested Tu160 as a cover for the exit of the nuclear submarine into the sea in your commentary at 10.40 laughing laughing
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 20: 46
              +1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Tu160 as a cover for the exit of the nuclear submarine into the sea

              yes, this is exactly how cover, by destroying enemy surface ships and aircraft carriers, but not for PLO
          2. timokhin-aa
            23 February 2021 00: 34
            +2
            for PLO it is recommended BE200.


            Why for PLO BE-200? He's a search and rescue!
            Okstay, Vladimir!
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 23 February 2021 09: 24
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              PLO BE-200

              the need for it and launch into a series is obvious, while only one is experimental
              1. timokhin-aa
                23 February 2021 12: 40
                0
                It is already in a small series, the Ministry of Defense even received such an aircraft, but explain to me, what has the PLO to do with it? Aircraft - search and rescue!
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 23 February 2021 14: 39
                  0
                  "In the air part of the parade, 41 units of aviation equipment will be presented. Including the Be-200 Altair anti-submarine amphibious aircraft," Shoigu said ..... are you smarter than the respected Sergei Shoigu ???? and the most official Russian news agency? ?? ..... https: //tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8521217 ..... tongue
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    24 February 2021 09: 32
                    +1
                    Including the Be-200 Altair anti-submarine amphibious aircraft, Shoigu said.


                    And if you read what is written on the fences, and in general ...

                    .you are smarter than the respected Sergei Shoigu ???? and the most official Russian news agency ???.


                    After the anti-submarine Be-200, I don't even know how to more accurately answer this question so as not to offend anyone.
                    By the way, he was not at the parade. Because of non-existence.
                    If anything.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 24 February 2021 18: 24
                      0
                      So your dear Sergei Shoigu and Tass are wrong, are you right? ...
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 24 February 2021 17: 42
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    "In the air part of the parade, 41 units of aviation equipment will be presented, including the Be-200 Altair anti-submarine amphibious aircraft," Shoigu said.

                    It's just that the minister traditionally does not know what exactly his own ministry bought:
                    ... in May 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed with TANTK im. G.M. Beriev State contract for the supply of the Russian Navy's Naval Aviation of six Be-200 amphibious aircraft - two Be-200ES aircraft and four modified Be-200PS search and rescue aircraft (without fire extinguishing function) - totaling 8,4 billion rubles. The delivery was supposed to be made under the terms of the contract in 2014-2016, but the construction of aircraft under this contract (serial numbers 309, 310 and 351 to 354) at TANTK turned into a long-term construction and in fact, according to known data, did not progress beyond the initial stage. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense terminated this contract.

                    In 2018, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a new contract with the UAC for the supply of Naval Aviation to the Navy. three Be-200 aircraft - one in the Be-200ES version and two in the Be-200PS version, the first of which was supposed to be delivered in 2019.

                    Moreover, this time Taganrog missed the deadline - the first car was transferred to the Ministry of Defense only on November 10, 2020.
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 15: 10
          -3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Uh-huh. And how many sorties must be made to cover the SSBN along the entire route?

          exactly as many times as the A50 aircraft and satellites will reveal the enemy AUG, KUG
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 22 February 2021 15: 28
            +5
            Will they also identify the nuclear submarine? wink ASW is carried out by surface ships, aviation and MAPL, if it is not destroyed by the enemy and provided contact is established. All of these species, taken separately, are not capable of carrying out an effective anti-aircraft defense of the area. Aircraft and surface ships complement each other. Already tested in many exercises both in the Soviet Union and in the West
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 February 2021 20: 48
              -1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              are able to carry out an effective PLO area. Aviation and surface watermen complement each other

              yes it is, coastal aviation and surface airmen, this is their task
        4. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 23 February 2021 00: 50
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          ..In the USSR it was understood in the 80s. Now, with the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the American MPSS, our SSBNs will be at gunpoint immediately upon leaving the Avacha Bay. The Union understood this ...
          belay and therefore immediately "Kiev" and "Minsk" ended up in the Mediterranean ... ?! winked
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 19: 55
            0
            Demonstration of the flag. Large ships are the favorite toys of admirals and politicians. And so yes - the only justification for the aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 is the conduct of anti-submarine operations when deploying our nuclear submarines in peacetime (more in war they will be drowned immediately or almost immediately) and the demonstration of our power to all naked-ass Papuans.
            1. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 24 February 2021 21: 28
              0
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              And so yes - the only justification for aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 - carrying out anti-submarine operations during the deployment of our nuclear submarines in peacetime (more in war they will be drowned immediately or almost immediately)
              ... belay a-aa-a (!)... i.e. precisely for this reason, the first two cruisers of Project 1143, sent not to the Pacific Fleet, but to the Mediterranean ... ? !! winked that is, it turns out "protected from use for its intended purpose" . ?!
    2. Foxnova
      Foxnova 22 February 2021 13: 36
      0
      Well, nevertheless, Baku was very different from Kiev, Minsk and Novorossiysk, it was closer to Kuznetsov and Varyag
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 22 February 2021 18: 13
        0
        How was he closer?
  • sivuch
    sivuch 22 February 2021 10: 52
    -4
    It can only be supplemented. The very first mistake was that all work on VTOL aircraft was outsourced to Yakovlev's bureau, to put it mildly - not the most progressive one (Mikoyans and dry cars with DPD can be ignored). And this at a time when there was real competition in tactical aviation, and in addition to the two monsters Mig and Su, Ilyushin and the same Yakovlev sometimes joined in. Of course, competition should have existed at the paper stage, after the Yak-36 it made no sense.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 22 February 2021 12: 12
      +2
      Uv. minusers - maybe you will write what exactly you did not like? Anyone can surreptitiously put cons.
    2. Avior
      Avior 22 February 2021 23: 11
      +1
      The very first mistake was that all work on the VTOL aircraft was outsourced to the Yakovlev bureau

      Sorry, but you are wrong
      Similar work was carried out by the Design Bureau of Sukhoi and Mikoyan. They refused to continue, the work was curtailed.
      True, formally, they considered aircraft not of vertical, but of short take-off and landing, but these were aircraft according to the same scheme as the Yak-38, with additional lifting engines.
      They were made on the basis of MiG-21, 23 and Su-15. All flew, conducted a set of tests.
      Work took place after the creation of the Yak-36, but before the creation of the Yak-38, at the end of the 60s. By the way, Yak-36 and Yak-38 have nothing in common, they are completely different aircraft.
      PS did not put cons to you.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 23 February 2021 09: 51
        +1
        So I wrote that - Mikoyans and dry cars with DPD can be ignored. There, the only goal was to reduce the take-off distance. Nobody was aiming at a vertical start.
        1. Avior
          Avior 23 February 2021 10: 06
          0
          So what? Why not consider?
          The main application of the same Harrier is taking off from a springboard and landing with low mileage, and for the Yak38 this is a problem.
          This is the use planned for Su and Mig.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 23 February 2021 10: 57
            0
            Are you saying that the MiG-23DPD or Su-15DPD was planned to be used from a springboard? And there were corresponding tests? I'd love to read it.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 22 February 2021 13: 22
    -8
    The article is curious, and most importantly - sensible. Not Timokhin at all - Damantsev: "Chief, everything is lost)))
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 23 February 2021 05: 23
      0
      Quote: TermNachTER
      The article is curious, and most importantly - sensible.

      And what is her health? The fact that the command of the Navy cannot formulate tasks for the Russian fleet? Or is it that home-grown experts are trying to attach non-existent aircraft (new) carrier-based aircraft to a non-existent floating airfield?
      What doubts can arise that an aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression (in the first place). Probably, a separately taken AUG is capable of inflicting irreparable harm on the enemy during a counter-terrorist operation on another continent. But that's all. Because with the development of ground-based and air-based anti-ship missiles in hypersonic design, the long-term survivability of aircraft carriers has been questioned.
      I have never heard from a single person (user) what the numerous aircraft carriers of the Russian fleet should be doing. What are their potential future challenges?
      And all the arguments about the number of ships in fleets can be depicted in the following revision:
      If you take one ship,
      There is no use in it, here.
      Because of it
      You can't build a fleet.
      If a couple of ships
      Cram into a warrant,
      Then ridicule and mockery
      We cannot escape.
      Take a lot of ships
      (About five pieces) -
      That would be a glorious fleet!
      But where can I get them? AND?
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 23 February 2021 12: 59
        0
        The article is interesting in that the author is trying to figure it out, without harshness and all-prophecy. As for the chaos "at the top", there is also enough of it in the regional center Washington, as well as in other regional centers and villages. The recent story with littoral steamers is a great example)))
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 22 February 2021 14: 26
    +1
    The third world war began to be viewed as "quite probable" (and in the "near future").

    By the 80s, everyone was well aware of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, the risk of a real global war was much less, say, than in the Khrushchev years.
    Reagan's aggressive rhetoric had quite mundane tasks - to bankrupt the USSR (whose economy by that time was already on its way), to demonstrate geopolitical weakness, to force many allies to renounce the Union.
    And it was not necessary to respond to this policy of American domination by any more mobilization of resources for military needs.
    naval senior officers, who often did not understand (and did not accept!) the new capabilities of aviation.
    this is called "incompetence" and "inadequacy". A common occurrence in a society where ideological loyalty is valued over professional skills.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 18: 22
      -2
      Reagan's aggressive rhetoric had quite mundane tasks - to bankrupt the USSR (whose economy by that time was already on its way), to demonstrate geopolitical weakness, to force many allies to renounce the Union.


      You would at least read the declassified documents of those times, if of course you speak English.
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 22 February 2021 19: 24
        +3
        Which documents? The Reagan Doctrine, which, in fact, was implemented in full measure ?! So this is Openel's secret. Years later, retired officials and military personnel told in detail how they were implementing the plan to destroy and de-discriminate the Soviet Empire ... simultaneously reducing both their nuclear arsenal and the number of carriers, this was actually the American "preparation" for WW3.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 19: 36
          0
          Which documents?


          Maritime strategy for example.
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 22 February 2021 19: 50
            +2
            It is also one of the elements of the above-mentioned doctrine of undermining and ruining the Union.
            Here you can also recall SDI, and the ubiquitous provocations from Afghanistan to Kamchatka.
            They provoked not because they were afraid of World War III, on the contrary, they knew about its impossibility.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 February 2021 20: 05
              0
              Not certainly in that way.
              When they launched it, the USSR had already started its shipbuilding programs.
              And they fully believed in the possibility of war, Reagan seriously thought about what it might cost in the end only in 1985.
  • Lozovik
    Lozovik 22 February 2021 18: 42
    +1
    Given the strict payload restrictions, the use of missiles such as the R-24 and R-27 was out of the question. However, we had a very effective technical and tactical solution - the R-73 missiles with a thermal seeker and a helmet-mounted target designation system, which made it possible to drastically reduce the requirements for the aircraft's maneuverable characteristics.

    Four R-73s with launching devices are about 600 kg on aircraft suspensions, which is a little too much for the Yak-38 (when working at full radius), but quite realistic.

    Nominally, the R-73 was not considered at all for the "verikalka" as its weapon, for use on air targets were the R-60 (M) with half the mass. However, the R-60M had an extremely small (and often insufficient for reliable target destruction) warhead, short range and insufficient capture range (especially in the front hemisphere of the target). That is, for real combat conditions, the effectiveness is an order of magnitude lower than the P-73.

    The R-73 went into mass production in the second half of the 80s, but before that it was quite possible to use the R-60M, the main thing was the installation of a helmet-mounted target designation system (NTSU) on the aircraft.

    Again, only the NCU could compensate for the extremely inadequate maneuverability of the Yak-38 in battle against normal fighters, providing it with a very real chance of victory (including through the use of R-73 missiles in the front hemisphere of the target).

    The calculation of the mass is very good, however, the Shchel-3UM, in addition to the NVU, has 3 more blocks in its composition. The GOS is interfaced with it through the on-board computer and KOLS, all this equipment has a significant mass.
    To increase the effectiveness of the UR, it is sufficient to install a more or less modern ASP-17BMTS rifle sight.
    1. timokhin-aa
      23 February 2021 00: 35
      0
      Shchel-3UM, in addition to the NVU, has 3 more units. The GOS is interfaced with it through the on-board computer and the KOLS, all this equipment has a significant mass.


      What kind of mass are we talking about?
      1. Lozovik
        Lozovik 24 February 2021 22: 39
        0
        KOLS 59 kg, BTsVM without BTsP, BPI, cables and indication 32 kg. I don't know the mass of Shchel-3UM.
  • Avior
    Avior 22 February 2021 19: 19
    +4
    38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the Yak-25M was put into service. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years. This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state.

    And what about the British?
    In 1957, the Bristol Engine Company, which produced aircraft engines, developed a power plant that could change the direction of the thrust vector. It was a turbofan engine equipped with knee-shaped nozzles mounted on the sides of the unit and rotating 90 degrees downward. Hawker Siddeley became interested in the new engine, which later received the designation Pegasus, which took it as the basis for the development of a light multipurpose aircraft with vertical take-off and landing ... The Pegasus I thrust was 9 pounds (or 000 kN), and its first activation was made in September 40 ...
    Design work on the P.1127 was officially commenced in 1957 ... In early 1967, the RAF ordered 60 aircraft to enter service and were given the designation Harrier GR.1 ....
    The first flight of the Harrier GR.1 aircraft took place on December 28, 1967. It officially entered service with the Royal Air Force on April 18, 1969.


    In total, with all prototypes, 12 years from the start of development and 10 years from the moment the engine was created for it.
    This is a clear difference in terms of creation between a single-engine and a multi-engine scheme.
    Look further

    ... But he focused on the shortcomings of the aircraft:

    low thrust-to-weight ratio ....

    unsatisfactory longitudinal balancing in case of engine thrust mismatch and disruption of their stable operation due to exhaust gases entering the inlet;

    high specific fuel consumption ...

    small power reserves of reactive control and directional stability in the modes of vertical takeoff and landing;


    high level of vibrations, thermal and acoustic loads,

    as well as insufficient operational adaptability ...

    and all this, we note, is a direct consequence of the fact that there was no suitable engine.
    Further more.

    “By combining WRC and short-range landing, significant improvements in aircraft performance were achieved, especially in tropical conditions.

    So, at a temperature of +30 ° C, starting with a takeoff run of 110 m, it turned out to be possible to increase the take-off weight of the aircraft by 1400 kg.

    An important achievement was the significant fuel economy (280 kg, compared to 360 kg for vertical takeoff).

    When landing with the new and the old method, fuel consumption was 120 and 240 kg, respectively.

    In terms of the indicated 1400 kg for fuel, this meant an increase in the range of the vehicle from 75 to 250 km at low altitudes and from 150 to 350 km at high altitudes "...



    but it was not there
    However, it should be borne in mind that if the takeoff with a short takeoff (SRS) justified itself, then the landing with "slip" was possible only when the sea was calm. The study of takeoff from a springboard (according to the "English model") showed that due to the complexity of the selection of the necessary engine thrust vector control algorithm, this method is not for the Yak-38

    Thus, it turned out that the economical take-off and landing modes commonly used by Harrier were not available for the Yak-38.
    The root of the problem lies in the propulsion system.
    And this was understandable after the very first experiments with VTOL aircraft, at the very beginning of the creation of the Yak-38.
    Guided by considerations of technical feasibility and relying on the experience of the British, Yakovlev insisted on creating an aircraft with one lift-sustainer engine. Perhaps that is why, when he learned that a group of his employees was proactively working on the look of a VTOL aircraft with a combined power plant, he forbade the OKB specialists to participate in this work.

    The "disgraced" group was headed by Deputy Chief Designer S.G. Mordovin, who proceeded from the fact that an engine suitable for use as a single power plant for a VTOL aircraft was not even in development in the USSR, and its creation would take ten to fifteen years.

    That is, from the very beginning it was clear that the three-engine scheme is not some kind of breakthrough technology, but a forced decision, from which it was desirable to go to a single-engine scheme, if there was such an opportunity. Moreover, during the development of the Yak-141, the situation repeated itself. We started with the development of a single-engine version, and only when it did not work out did we move on to the old three-engine version, with all its shortcomings.
    On June 26, 1974, a directive was issued by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which officially gave rise to the development of a new VTOL and set a deadline for presenting the finished draft. At an early stage, the use of a single power plant with one PMD with a thrust of 15 kgs was implied. The first full-size model of the aircraft was assembled. But already in the course of work on it, it became clear that a car with such an arrangement would be almost impossible to stabilize in vertical flight modes. The State Commission, having familiarized itself with the layout, came to the same conclusions. Therefore, it was decided to switch to a combined power plant, the experience of creating and operating which was already obtained on the Yak-000.


    Thus, although the Yak-38 as a whole turned out and flew, it turned out to be impossible to achieve high performance from it, in principle achievable. This same fate undoubtedly awaited the Yak-141.
    Therefore, the creation of a modern VTOL aircraft should start with the development of a propulsion system, and the very first question is whether it is possible to obtain a single-engine power plant on the basis of the Su-57 engines at least the first, even the second stage, or other available engines, or not? If this is real, then a fairly rapid development of VTOL aircraft is possible and it is realistic to obtain light aircraft carriers based on the aircraft carriers under construction and Kuznetsov, if he waits until those years. And if not, then the VTOL aircraft is not worth starting, although the decision to create it already exists, however, it is not known that something would actually be done.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 February 2021 19: 38
      -2

      Thus, although the Yak-38 as a whole turned out and flew, it turned out to be impossible to achieve high performance from it, in principle achievable.


      And compare LTH Yak-38M and Harrier?
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 February 2021 20: 29
        +4
        Theoretical performance characteristics, you mean.
        And in practice, they are unrealizable, read Klimov above, I quoted quotes from his article.
        That is why the Harrier in various modifications has been in service since 1969 until now, and has been tested by combat operations on land and at sea in several military conflicts, and the Yak-38, which was put into service in the late 70s, actually began to be removed from service. already at the end of the 80s, although formally it stood until 2004, only the aircraft were not in flight readiness for a long time.
        1. timokhin-aa
          23 February 2021 00: 27
          0
          Let's get practical, what's the problem.
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 February 2021 02: 34
            +1
            80s versions
            Harrier also has more advanced versions, that is, he had a headroom for upgrades.

            Modification of the Yak-38M
            Weight, kg
            empty 7500 aircraft
            normal take-off with GDP 10800
            normal take-off with UVP 11800

            Thrust, kgf
            lifting and marching 1 x 6700
            Maximum speed km / h
            at height 1080
            Practical range, km
            normal 1100
            with vertical take-off 550
            Practical ceiling, m 11000
            Max. operational overload 6
            Armament: At 4 external suspensions - maximum - 2000 kg of combat load, with GDP - 1000 kg


            Harrier GR.7 modification
            Weight, kg:
            empty 5700 aircraft
            takeoff at GDP 8595
            maximum takeoff 14060
            Thrust, kgf 1 x 9865
            Ferry range ,. Km 3255
            Practical ceiling, m 15710
            Max. operational overload 7
            nine suspension points:
            maximum combat load
            during takeoff with a short takeoff - 4170 kg
            with vertical takeoff - 3000 kg

            And what from this?
            1. timokhin-aa
              23 February 2021 12: 32
              0
              Combat radius with max. combat load.
              Combat radius with 50% combat load
              For vertical and short take-off (we have WRC, they have from a springboard)

              Nomenclature of offensive weapons, list.
              The nomenclature of the WTO used without ground posts of the Central Administration.

              Several payload options to illustrate real-world capabilities.

              To start.

              We'll see there. To compare the aircraft of the same years, that is, GR.5 / AV-8B and subsequent iterations are not proposed, the 38th has already dropped out of this race.
              1. Avior
                Avior 23 February 2021 16: 12
                0
                I am waiting for you to do this, and I will be happy to see the results. Just compare with the same combat load in terms of weight and with the full use of the aircraft's takeoff and landing capabilities. Do not forget to add statistics on takeoffs and landings in combat conditions in combatant regiments, especially for urgent sorties.
                I look forward to the results. There we will see how paper LTHs differ from real ones.
                hi
                1. timokhin-aa
                  24 February 2021 09: 34
                  0
                  Just compare with the same combat load in terms of weight and with the full use of the aircraft's takeoff and landing capabilities.


                  I will dig into the data that I previously found on the Internet, how I can post it.
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 23 February 2021 04: 50
    0
    Some kind of porridge. It is difficult to grasp the meaning of what the author wanted to say. Liked about the idea of ​​countering the Yak38 and F16 or F15. I wonder how many minutes the Yak would not have been shot down?
    1. timokhin-aa
      23 February 2021 12: 33
      +1
      Not for long, but the question was, at least to disrupt a dense volley of anti-ship missiles from enemy attack aircraft or to divert its interceptors from the strike group of their attack aircraft.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 23 February 2021 09: 26
    0
    The dispute about the Yak-38 and about the VTOL aircraft in general is in the style of how to come up with a useful use for an unnecessary gift: put it under the leg of a swinging table or use it as oppression for pickling cabbage.
    If we need carrier-based aircraft, then these are AWACS and fighters. VTOL aircraft are not suitable for these roles. And aircraft carriers under VTOL aircraft are not suitable for carriers of AWACS aircraft and fighters. No need to step on this rake anymore.
    1. Avior
      Avior 23 February 2021 10: 19
      0
      And when was the last time Russian or Soviet fighters were used in combat conditions in air battles?
      During the Korean War, and that is limited?
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 23 February 2021 10: 27
        0
        They were not used because it was scary to go against them. It is desirable that this remains so.
        1. Avior
          Avior 23 February 2021 10: 32
          +1
          And has that changed?
          Have you moved from local conflicts to global conflicts? There were quite a few local ones.
          And the VTOL aircraft in local conflicts would be very useful, as proved by the many years of experience of the British.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 23 February 2021 12: 51
            0
            Quote: Avior
            And the VTOL aircraft in local conflicts would be very useful, as proved by the many years of experience of the British

            What kind of local conflicts, where do we need naval aviation?
            1. Avior
              Avior 23 February 2021 14: 47
              0
              VTOL, not ship
            2. Avior
              Avior 23 February 2021 15: 02
              0
              The British successfully used in Afghanistan
            3. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 23 February 2021 20: 33
              0
              You never know where. Russia is a great power, its interests extend far from borders. It is possible (in my opinion even necessary) to argue about why Libya and Venezuela fell for us, but the country's leadership believes that we need them. Our investments are in such troubled countries as Iraq and Nigeria, and in heaps of others. It is much more convenient to promote your interests with an aircraft carrier than without it. Already all sorts of Turkey, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia have acquired or are acquiring aircraft carriers. It's clear about China. For now, we need to keep Kuzya, and then we'll see.
      2. timokhin-aa
        23 February 2021 12: 28
        0
        An UAV was shot down in Georgia in 2008.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 23 February 2021 13: 45
    0
    Well, again 25.

    If it were not for building Kievs and yaks in general, but spending resources on a dozen tankers, heels of meat processing plants and a couple of jeans factories, maybe the USSR would still exist.

    The main problem was truly strategic - they were constantly preparing for a war that never happened.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 09: 35
      0
      The main problem was truly strategic - they were constantly preparing for a war that never happened.


      So why didn't it happen?
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 24 February 2021 10: 47
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The main problem was truly strategic - they were constantly preparing for a war that never happened.


    So why didn't it happen?


    From the fact that they themselves rotted from the inside, not noticing the greater danger.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 12: 45
      0
      Yes? And why in the 60s? In the 70s?
      Then, too, have already rotted? Or someone could not get rid of the total Yankee-class salvo from the Atlantic and the Pacific?
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 24 February 2021 13: 48
        0
        In 53 they started, in 91 they finished. This is about rotting. The process is not instantaneous.

        The army must fight, otherwise it is a waste of resources.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 17: 47
          +1
          The army must fight, otherwise it is a waste of resources.


          Do you really want to see a war where 667BDRM and Borei fire off full volleys?
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 24 February 2021 18: 34
            0
            Why shoot? They already have military campaigns, not training ones.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 24 February 2021 20: 18
              0
              Combat duty and fighting are somewhat different things.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 February 2021 10: 00
    0
    Oh damn. As it is considered in aviation, 1 kg extra. load increases takeoff weight by 9 kg. You cannot just take and put on the Yak-38 a radar weighing 200 kg, for this you will have to install an additional one. equipment in the cockpit, increase the volume of the nose, since the nose becomes heavier, it will be necessary to balance this weight with some kind of counterweights, since the flight characteristics, and so none, will fall, it will be necessary to increase the fuel supply and install a more powerful engine. And as I wrote to those articles in the comments, we will inevitably come to the same tonnes of weight for the Yak-41 and Yak-39, which are larger than the MiG-29.