Vertical take-off: a dead-end direction or the future of combat aviation
Vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) - we can say that this type of aircraft was practically born extremely difficult. No, there were a great many prototypes, projects and ideas, but when it came to practice, all of them often turned out to be unviable.
In pursuit of vertical takeoff and landing, the designers offered the most extravagant solutions
In fact, only the British VTOL "Harrier", which in several versions were in service with the British and American armed forces (AF), received truly practical use and confirmed combat use.
"Harriers" showed themselves quite well in the service of the British and American Armed Forces
Without VTOL "Sea Harrier" Great Britain could well have lost the battle for the Falkland Islands
Of course, you can recall the Soviet VTOL Yak-38 and the American F-35B, but the first, in fact, was not brought to mind, and the second is just starting its way, and has not yet shown itself in real combat (ironic enough that the fact that while the combat experience of the Yak-38 and F-35B is comparable: they both bombed the mujahideen in Afghanistan).
When we talk about vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, we also mean short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, to which many refer to the F-35B. In fact, this is not entirely true - the F-35B can carry out both vertical landing and vertical takeoff - doubters can watch this process on video:
Vertical takeoff F-35B
Another question is that in the vertical take-off mode, the combat load can be maximally limited, and the range of action is also reduced, but nevertheless, the F-35B has the possibility of vertical take-off. Moreover, a short takeoff run is in some respects more difficult than a vertical takeoff. On the Soviet Yak-38, takeoff with a short takeoff run was generally considered impossible from the outset due to the complexity of synchronizing the operation of three jet engines - one main and two lifting ones.
Soviet Yak-38 mastered vertical takeoff earlier than short takeoff
So the short take-off and vertical landing mode was chosen for the F-35B as the main one, but not as the only one, due to the need to increase the combat load and range.
As soon as it comes to VTOL aircraft, a flurry of criticism often falls on them, on the basis of which one might think that these machines are generally unsuitable for combat. But in fact, this is far from the case.
The technology itself for the development of VTOL aircraft is really more complicated than that of aircraft of the classical design, and it is quite logical that they lagged behind for a long time in development, but now the gap between classic aircraft and VTOL aircraft is no longer so great.
Consider classic examples of VTOL criticism.
Price
High cost compared to classic aircraft.
This argument is easy enough to argue. We have a wonderful American fifth-generation F-35 light fighter program that comes in three versions - the classic F-35A for the US Air Force, the F-35C carrier-based aircraft for the US Navy. and VTOL F-35B for the command of the Marine Corps (ILC). Public information about the cost of these machines for different parties is available on Wikipedia.
Cost of F-35 fighters of various production batches
It can be noted that the cost of the F-35B VTOL aircraft in some batches was almost equal to the cost of the classic F-35A and even lower than the cost of the aircraft carrier version of the F-35C.
Why has the relative value of the F-35B increased in the last batch?
It can be assumed that the fact is that production is primarily optimized for the large-scale production of the F-35A. The difference in cost between the F-35B and the F-35C is no longer that great. It is clear that VTOL aircraft should be more expensive than a classic aircraft, but the difference will be about 10% or even less, as can be seen from some batches.
An increasing part of the cost of combat aircraft is the cost of airborne electronic equipment (avionics), and it is identical for all three aircraft. Even the engine is the heart of the aircraft; the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C aircraft are largely unified.
It is often said that it was the development of VTOL aircraft within the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C line that caused the increase in cost and delays in the program as a whole - they say, if there were no unification with VTOL aircraft, the rest of the aircraft would be better and cheaper.
It is unlikely that this is the case.
As mentioned above, the most complex part of modern military equipment is avionics and software, as an integral part of it.
Engine?
But it is unified, in addition, the delays in the F-135-PW-600 engine for the F-35B were not supposed to affect the F135-PW-100 and F135-PW-400, intended, respectively, for the F-35A and F-35C ... Do not forget that the most difficult part is the rotary nozzle, the Americans supposedly "borrowed" from the Soviet Р79В-300 (product 79).
The R79V-300 engine for the Yak-141 VTOL aircraft - the collapse of the USSR allowed the United States to save tens of millions of dollars and years of work on the development of an engine for VTOL aircraft
Difficulty taking off and landing
It is believed that VTOL aircraft are much more difficult to control at the take-off and landing stage, in addition, the risks for the pilot in these modes are significantly higher.
And so it was. Earlier.
At present, the level of automation of take-off and landing processes can be so high that a vertical or short take-off, like a vertical landing, will be much easier than on a classic aircraft. To understand this, it is enough to look at the graceful landing of the first stages of reusable launch vehicles, carried out in a fully automatic mode.
Simultaneous landing of boosters of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle
In the future, the level of automation will only increase.
On VTOL aircraft, it will be easier to take off from a swinging platform (ship) and land on it, it will be easier to take off in bad weather conditions - strong winds, limited visibility, take off from a spot, with a short takeoff run, from a springboard or in the normal horizontal takeoff mode.
F-35B takes off from the springboard - during the tests, the weight and size models of four Paveway IV bombs and two ASRAAM B-B missiles were suspended on the plane
What does this mean in practice?
That in the conditions of a sudden enemy attack, when the air group must be lifted into the air as quickly as possible, part of the VTOL aircraft can be launched from a "catapultless" aircraft carrier using a springboard with full ammunition, and the other part can take off with a short takeoff run without using a springboard, so as not to stand in queues for the springboard.
And part of the VTOL aircraft can completely leave, using vertical takeoff, at least in order not to turn into a target on board the ship, but, most likely, they will also be able to carry a certain amount of ammunition, for example, several missiles Air-to-air (B-B).
The ability to create rapidly deployable land airfields with a springboard can be useful when organizing an advanced air base somewhere in mountainous or wooded areas, with limited space for a full-size runway (runway).
Takeoff of combat aircraft from a ground springboard
Takeoff of the F-35B from the ground springboard
Classic planes can too
This refers to the argumentation that modern aircraft can also take off with a fairly small takeoff run.
This is partly true, but there are nuances.
For most fighters, the takeoff run without the use of afterburner is 500-700 meters or more, with the use of afterburner, according to various sources, this value can be reduced to 250-350 meters.
But with what combat load and what fuel consumption?
The Su-35 with a normal take-off weight and full afterburner has a takeoff run of 400-450 meters, for the Su-57 it is 350 meters. The F-35B has a short take-off run of 161 meters, with a springboard - 137 meters.
At the same time, for example, the Yak-141 could take off in six ways:
- in the usual way, when the nozzle of the lift-sustainer engine (PMD) maintains a horizontal position, and the lift motors are turned off;
- with a short take-off run of about 120 meters, when, after the start of the movement, the lifting motors are started, and the PMD nozzle changes the thrust direction angle to 62 degrees;
- with a short take-off run of about 60-80 meters, with the use of retarding devices (chassis wheel retarders);
- with an ultra-short take-off run up to 6 meters, with wheel restraints, with a PMD nozzle previously deployed at 62 degrees and with running lifting motors;
- using a springboard;
- vertical takeoff.
There is no need to talk about landing - classic aircraft will not even come close in this parameter to VTOL aircraft. Even if we remember the use of aerofinishers on aircraft carriers, the landing procedure, especially on a swinging platform, using aerofinishers is much more difficult than landing a VTOL aircraft, and automating it is also much more difficult (albeit possible), and the load on the aircraft and its payload - significantly higher.
Landing a classic aircraft on an aircraft carrier is much more difficult than landing a VTOL aircraft
The length of the Su-35 with a braking parachute is 600 meters.
A number of sources say that the Su-57 has a run length of 100 meters, but it is not yet clear how such a significant reduction in the run length was achieved (if achieved), how hard the landing is obtained in this mode, and is it possible with a payload?
According to other sources, the range of the Su-57 is two times less than that of the Su-35, that is, about 250-300 meters, which already seems closer to reality.
In any case, if the VTOL aircraft is able to land on the "patch", then the classic aircraft needs to go to the landing glide path and sit on the runway in a certain place with a sufficiently high accuracy. Even if the run length of 100 meters is reached, touching accuracy at a certain point will be added to it, the need for a runway reserve for emergency situations, that is, in the end we will still get at least 200-300 meters. And if the Su-57 has a run length of 250-300 meters, then a runway of the order of 400-500 meters will be required.
With regard to the firmness of the fit.
Modern high-precision weapon quite sensitive to operating conditions - vibrations, temperature drops, shocks. Each weapon is designed for a certain (conditional) number of takeoffs and landings. The harder the landing, the higher the chance that expensive weapons will fail. With a high probability, landing on an aircraft carrier is a rather serious test not only for the aircraft, but also for its unused combat load.
The VTOL aircraft can return the payload with much lower loads - just visually compare the landing hardness of the F-35C and F-35B.
Huge fuel consumption, lower combat load, poor flight characteristics
It cannot be denied that with vertical takeoff, both the combat load and the range are reduced.
But here, as we said earlier, it all depends on the situation - sometimes it is better to take off quickly with a minimum of ammunition and with a small amount of fuel, than turn into a heap of metal during a massive impact on a ship or a home airfield.
And with what combat load do combat aircraft fly now?
For example, the F-35B can carry four AIM-120 V-B missiles in its internal compartments, which will weigh less than 800 kilograms, with a maximum payload of 6 800 kilograms, most likely, with such ammunition it will take off vertically, even if it will lose about 30% range (by analogy with the Yak-38 with vertical takeoff).
The combat load of modern fighters is more often limited by the volume of internal compartments than by the mass of weapons.
With regard to takeoff with a short takeoff run, here the fuel consumption should already be comparable to the fuel consumption during takeoff of classic aircraft using afterburner.
At the same time, VTOL aircraft will have a take-off run of about 120-160 meters, while classic aircraft will have about 250-350 meters, that is, twice as much. And the combat load can already be much higher if it is not maximum.
When they talk about VTOL aircraft, they often mention a low combat load in principle. However, this is not quite true.
It's just that they often compare combat vehicles of different weight categories and different time periods.
The combat load of the Yak-38, which entered service in 1977, was 1 ton - during vertical takeoff and 1,5 tons - during takeoff. Its maximum takeoff weight during takeoff / vertical takeoff was 11,3 / 10,3 tons. It should be compared with the MiG-23ML, which has been mass-produced since 1976 (it should be understood that the MiG-23ML was the result of a long work on the errors of the basic MiG-23).
И что же?
With a maximum takeoff weight of the MiG-23ML of 20 tons, its combat load is only 2 tons, that is, almost proportional to the maximum weight / combat load of the Yak-38.
Yes, of course, the MiG-23 has a much larger range and speed, better than avionics, but do not forget that the MiG-23 was the result of a long evolution of classic jet fighters, while the Yak-38 became the first serial Soviet VTOL aircraft.
When the first jet aircraft appeared, they were also inferior in many respects to the used piston aircraft.
But what if we compare the Yak-141 and the MiG-29?
Flight performance (LTH) Yak-141 and MiG-29
It can be seen that the flight characteristics of the Yak-141 and MiG-29 are already much closer than those of the Yak-38 and MiG-23ML. At the same time, do not forget that the work on the MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft received much more attention and funding than the Yakovlev design bureau and their VTOL aircraft.
The characteristics of the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are not so radically different. Perhaps the most noticeable disadvantages of the F-35B include only a slightly shorter flight range.
Performance characteristics and flight characteristics of the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C (ru.wikipedia.org)
But it must be remembered that the F-35B received much less attention than the F-35A and F-35C.
What if the priority was given to the F-35B?
What if this aircraft were created without compromise with the "land" and aircraft carrier options?
In my opinion, when creating modern samples of VTOL aircraft, the difference with their classical counterparts in terms of performance characteristics and performance characteristics can reach 10% or less.
Not purchased or sold
They reproach the VTOL aircraft with the fact that they are little purchased on the international arms market and purchased for their own armed forces, for example, the same F-35B.
But who buys the F-35 - US vassals?
Who are now exactly ready for a serious war? Who among the buyers of aircraft of the F-35 line fights normally, except Israel? And Israel, how long has it fought with a serious enemy?
The Arabs are now not at all what they were during the "Seven Day War". One gets the impression that weapons are now more often bought not for war, but for political and economic reasons.
Nevertheless, there are VTOL aircraft in the USA. The Soviet Union also actively developed this direction. If the USSR had not collapsed, it is possible that Great Britain would have developed its own replacement for the Harier.
As for the rest of the countries, for example, the PRC, after all, we have already said earlier that the VTOL aircraft are very difficult - China copes well with copying other people's technologies, but even its conventional jet engines are not yet very good, what can we say about a more complex engine for VTOL aircraft?
It is possible that China simply does not yet have the technological capabilities to create VTOL aircraft. What if "tomorrow" they decide this issue and start riveting VTOL aircraft in the hundreds?
Conclusions
During World War II, the leading warring states actively built huge battleships, spending a significant part of defense costs on this. At the same time, the realities of hostilities showed absolute superiority aviation, aircraft carriers and submarines on the fields of naval battles.
Is this not an indicator of the deepest delusions that can get in the way of the development of promising types of weapons?
Nowadays satellite reconnaissance goes to a fundamentally new level.
What if airfields become extremely vulnerable?
What if the destruction of "stationary" airfields will require an interval of about a day, for airfields deployed on sections of highways and highways, about several days, while it will take about a week to find and destroy a hidden airfield for VTOL aircraft?
After all, a 100–150 meter site is much more difficult to locate than a 500 meter runway, not to mention “stationary” aerodromes with kilometers of runways. Yes, and false "short" airfields can be deployed in hundreds, if not thousands.
What if, as a result of hostilities, strong opponents simply knock out all aircraft from each other with long-range weapons on airfields in the first weeks?
Then expensive precision weapons will run out. Will the ground war be left without air support from both sides?
How long will the hostilities last in this format?
Article Is a repetition of World War II possible in the realities of the XNUMXst century? considered the reasons why prolonged offensive hostilities may not be possible in our time.
And if one of the opponents builds an effective VTOL aircraft, learns to quickly deploy real and false mobile airfields for them? Will not only he be left with the combat aviation as a result?
A separate conversation, to which we will return later, is the ratio of cost and efficiency of a full-size aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier for VTOL aircraft.
This article is not intended to prove the absolute superiority of VTOL aircraft over classic combat aircraft. On the contrary, in my opinion, air supremacy will be won by heavier classic combat vehicles, but light combat aircraft will also be of great importance in solving this problem.
The prospects for combat aviation in the medium term were previously discussed in the article Light or heavy, manned or unmanned: how combat aviation will develop in the XNUMXst century.
So, in addition to the lower cost of purchase and operation, which light combat aircraft can have in comparison with heavy ones, the advantage is the possibility of implementing light combat aircraft in the VTOL variant. This will significantly increase their survivability in the face of the enemy delivering high-precision weapons strikes to the entire depth of the territory at stationary objects - airfields and airbases.
In this article, we examined the real and perceived shortcomings of VTOL aircraft. In the next, we will study promising technical solutions and advantages that promising VTOL aircraft can receive in comparison with their predecessors and with classic aircraft.
Information