Military Review

The heart of the aircraft: aircraft engine and technical solutions capable of bringing the promising Russian VTOL aircraft to a new level

152

Article Vertical take-off: a dead-end direction or the future of combat aviation considered real and perceived shortcomings attributed to vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL).


It can be noted that with the advent of new generations of VTOL aircraft, its characteristics are getting closer to the "classic" combat aircraft of comparable weight and size characteristics. If the Yak-38 was significantly inferior to the MiG-21bis and the MiG-23ML in flight and technical characteristics (LTH), then the difference between the LTH of the Yak-141 and the MiG-29 is no longer so significant, while in some parameters the Yak-141 even won. If we talk about the American line of F-35, which contains the "classic" F-35A, VTOL F-35B and aircraft carrier version of the F-35C, then their characteristics are already quite comparable.

When they talk about the small distribution of VTOL aircraft, they forget that this technology itself is much more complicated - not every country can handle it. For example, tiltroplanes are still very little widespread, they are not even in our country, despite the rather developed aviation industry, while few doubt the effectiveness and prospects of convertiplanes. With VTOL aircraft, the situation is similar - it is quite difficult to build them without technical groundwork. In fact, only the United States has been able to do this in the XNUMXst century.

The countries of Europe are generally gradually losing their competence in the construction of combat aircraft, their development is extremely time-consuming and costly in finance. If we talk, for example, about Sweden, then in their "Grippen" there is a turbojet engine (TRD) based on the American General Electric F404 engine from the F / A-18 Hornet, that is, the Swedes themselves cannot create an engine even for a classic aircraft, what really here to talk about VTOL aircraft. Britain lost the competence to create a VTOL aircraft, abandoning the development of the next generation VTOL "Harrier" and switching to the American F-35B. France was just experimenting in this direction.

The same is with the PRC, they have a lot of things being developed and produced, but it will not work out with aircraft engines - there is a serious lag in terms of thrust and turbojet engine resource. But to create an engine for VTOL aircraft is even more difficult. It can be assumed that as soon as the engine-building industry of China solves its problems, they will be closely engaged in the topic of VTOL aircraft.

According to information from the Chinese and American media, work on the J-18 VTOL aircraft ("Jian-18", according to the NATO classification "Red Eagle") has been intensified in the PRC. The VTOL glider should be made using technologies to reduce signature, the range will be about 2 kilometers, and a radar station (radar) with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) will be installed on the J-000.

China has been trying to develop a VTOL aircraft since the 60s of the 1994th century, for which a decommissioned Harrier was even purchased from a collector in Britain. In 141, the Russian VTOL Yak-2025 was allegedly purchased for the same purposes. It is assumed that the Chinese VTOL aircraft may appear by XNUMX.


In terms of the creation of VTOL aircraft and turbojet engines for them, Russia got such a backlog from the USSR, which other countries could only envy. Despite the fact that a lot of time has passed, this reserve can and should be used.

The heart of the aircraft: aircraft engine and technical solutions capable of bringing the promising Russian VTOL aircraft to a new level
The USSR was one of two countries capable of creating serial samples of VTOL aircraft, and it was in the USSR that the Yak-141 was created - a machine that was decades ahead of its time.

The heart of the aircraft, on which most of its flight characteristics depend, is the turbojet engine. It is not difficult to trace the logical chain - as the specific and maximum power of the turbojet engine increased, the VTOL aircraft parameters were increasingly approaching the parameters of "classic" aircraft.

And to create a Russian VTOL aircraft, first of all, you will need to create a suitable engine for it.

Engine for VTOL aircraft


There are two ways.

The first is to create an aircraft engine for a promising VTOL aircraft based on the promising product 30 turbojet engine - the second stage engine for the Su-57, which is being worked on with long delays. It is difficult to say how realistic this is, since the characteristics of the Product 30 turbojet engine are classified, there is no information about whether this engine can be equipped with a rotary nozzle, which is significantly different from a conventional nozzle with a controlled thrust vector (SVT).

Equipping VTOL aircraft with lifting motors is not an option - this is the technology of the last century, that is, it is necessary to provide power take-off to the fan from Product 30. And whether this is possible in principle on this turbojet engine is unknown.


The use of a turbojet engine for vertical take-off and landing creates problems during the operation of VTOL aircraft due to the destruction of runways (runways) by a hot jet stream

However, there is another possibility - at one time the engine of the Yak-141 aircraft showed outstanding characteristics, and on its basis the development of promising turbojet engines continues, which was described in the article Soviet legacy: fifth generation turbojet engine based on Product 79.

Potentially, the heart of the promising Russian VTOL aircraft can be the R579-300 turbojet engine developed by the Soyuz AMNTK.


TRD R579-300 developed by AMNTK "Soyuz"

TRD R579-300


Why turbojet engine R579-300?

According to the manufacturer, this aircraft engine can be confidently attributed to the fifth generation of aircraft engines, and high performance is achieved through the use of effective design solutions, and not through the use of complex technological operations and materials, the development of which by our industry can cause delays in development and serial production promising turbojet engines.

The developer's website contains a table with the characteristics of the R579-300 turbojet engine in various versions, including options for VTOL aircraft with a maximum afterburner thrust of up to 21-23 thousand kgf.


Options for the implementation of the turbojet engine R579-300 for various aircraft

The turbojet R579-300 has two features that make it an extremely promising solution for a promising Russian VTOL aircraft.

The first is the ability to connect a load of more than 40 MW on the turbojet shaft.

The second is an adaptive bypass ratio and an adjustable compression ratio.


The ability to connect the load on the turbojet engine shaft allows you to place a lifting fan on it, similar to how it is implemented in the F-35B. The lift fan not only eliminates the need for heavy and fuel-intensive auxiliary lift motors, but also reduces the thermal load on the runway.

In addition, with a high probability, the basis for the combat stability of combat aircraft in the XNUMXst century will be promising airborne self-defense systems, including laser systems for airborne self-defense and means of electronic warfare (EW). Increasing the power of the AFAR radar also requires a powerful source of electricity on board. This can be an electric generator on the turbojet engine shaft.


A prototype of a superconducting synchronous aircraft engine with a capacity of 1 megawatt, with a power density of 20 kilowatts per kilogram, developed in Germany - given the reversibility of synchronous electric machines, on the basis of this technology, compact electric generators with minimal dimensions and high efficiency can be created. Photo: Demaco.nl

Not less, if not great opportunities will be given by an adjustable bypass ratio, which allows you to create a cold jet stream due to a large maximum bypass ratio and, accordingly, large air volumes passed through. In this case, the speed of the "cold" jet stream will be commensurate with the speed of the "hot" jet.

According to the developers of AMNTK Soyuz, in a promising Russian VTOL aircraft based on the R579-300 turbojet engine, vertical take-off can be realized without turning the main nozzle, by using a lifting fan and bleeding air from the external circuit, which will be ejected through small downward nozzles in the central / aft fuselage and wing tips (the latter should be used to stabilize VTOL aircraft). In this case, the temperature of the jet stream directed downward will be about 150-200 degrees Celsius, which will completely solve the problem of the destruction of runway materials during vertical takeoff (or takeoff with a short takeoff) of promising VTOL aircraft.

Potentially, an option can be considered when even a lifting fan will not be used, and vertical take-off and landing will be carried out only due to the removal of air from the "cold" circuit into nozzles located at several points of the VTOL fuselage.

But it is precisely the high temperature of the jet stream that significantly complicates the operation of VTOL aircraft both on ships and on land.


Previously created VTOL aircraft severely destroyed the runway, there is such a problem with the modern VTOL aircraft F-35B - a red-hot flame from the turbojet engine rotating nozzle is clearly visible in the photo image

In addition to providing the possibility of "cold" vertical take-off and landing, as well as providing energy to promising laser self-defense systems, electronic warfare equipment and radar systems with AFAR, a lifting fan and an adaptive bypass ratio will make it possible to realize several more advantages in a promising VTOL aircraft.

additional benefits


A large volume of cold air received from the second circuit of the turbojet engine can be used not only at the stage of vertical take-off and landing. One of the promising and effective ways to improve aerodynamics and controllability of an aircraft in the entire range of altitudes and flight speeds is boundary layer control.


Boundary layer control principle

Boundary layer control consists in ensuring uninterrupted flow around the wing in a wide range of angles of attack by increasing the energy of the boundary layer. The impact on the boundary layer is necessary to weaken or prevent stalling of the flow on the streamlined surface. In the USSR, blowing off the boundary layer was used by MiG-21 fighters to increase the lift of the wing during takeoff and landing - high-pressure air was supplied through a slot in the leading edge of the flaps.


The MiG-21PF / PFS / SPS (boundary layer blowing) was developed for operation from unpaved airfields. To this end, the fighter was equipped with R-11-F2S-300 engines with air bleed from a compressor and a system for blowing off the boundary layer from the flaps, which made it possible to reduce the length of the run to an average of 480 m, and the landing speed to 240 km / h!

In the promising VTOL aircraft with the R579-300 turbojet engine, the boundary layer control will not only improve the efficiency of the controls, but also, for example, compensate for the disadvantages of the aerodynamic efficiency of the fuselage, which may arise as a result of its optimization to reduce radar signature.

The turbojet engine's ability to create a powerful flow of cold air can be used to implement gas-dynamic control of VTOL aircraft, which, in turn, can lead to a decrease in the size of aerodynamic controls or even the abandonment of some of them and, as a consequence, to a decrease in the radar signature of a combat aircraft.


Gas-dynamic control was used even in the "Harrier" VTOL aircraft, however, the power of the turbojet engine of that time did not allow making it really effective.

And, finally, cold air can be used to cool the turbojet engine nozzle and other structural elements, which will reduce the detection range of a promising VTOL aircraft by infrared sensors and reduce the likelihood of its being hit by missiles with infrared homing heads (IR seeker).

In principle, all this can be implemented on aircraft with horizontal takeoff and landing in the event that they have an engine with a large bypass ratio, but VTOL aircraft have another advantage, which is often considered only as a disadvantage - its lift fan.

Lifting fan


By itself, the use of a lift fan is more efficient than the use of separate jet engines, at least because of the lower fuel consumption and the cold air flow created by the lift fan, which does not destroy the runway in the same way as the incandescent jet of a jet engine directed downward does.

In addition, the implementation of the lifting fan will require the development of the technology of taking high power from the turbojet engine shaft. A side effect of this technology will be the possibility of placing on the turbojet engine shaft, in addition to the lifting fan itself, also an electric energy generator, which is vital to provide power to the onboard laser self-defense systems, electronic warfare equipment and radar with AFAR, as already mentioned above.

The presence of powerful sources of electricity and air supply on board the VTOL aircraft will completely abandon unreliable and fire hazardous hydraulic drives in favor of electric and pneumatic drives.

Along with fuel, air is the most important component that allows the turbojet engine to realize all its characteristics. There are situations when the amount of air supplied to the turbojet engine installed on board the aircraft becomes insufficient. This problem can arise when the aircraft is operated at high-altitude airfields, at high flight altitudes, or during intensive maneuvering.

In this situation, a promising VTOL aircraft can use a lift fan to pump additional air volumes to the engine, with the upper flaps open and the lower flaps closed. In this case, the air flow through special channels will enter the turbojet engine, allowing it to operate at maximum power.


Lifting fan VTOL F-35B

For example, somewhere at a high-altitude airfield to take off a "classic" combat aircraft with a full combat load, a runway with a length of one and a half kilometers will be required, while a VTOL aircraft, due to the provision of a turbojet engine with additional air volumes, will carry out a "horizontal" take-off from a runway with a length of 300-500 meters.

conclusions


The growth of the specific and maximum, afterburner and non-afterburning power of the turbojet engine largely eliminates the differences between the "classic" aircraft and VTOL aircraft.

It can be assumed that the characteristics of promising "classic" combat aircraft and VTOL aircraft will differ within 10-15%. For example, a VTOL aircraft will have 1–2 tons less combat load, which is tolerable if a "classic" aircraft has 8 tons, and a VTOL aircraft of 6-7 tons, all the same, the aircraft simply does not have enough suspension points, especially intra-fuselage ones, so that hang weapons on such a mass. Or the ferry range of a "classic" aircraft will be 200-300 kilometers longer than that of a VTOL aircraft, which is not critical when it is about three to four thousand kilometers.

At the same time, VTOL aircraft will have advantages that cannot be realized on "classic" combat aircraft.

Under the revolutionary development of space reconnaissance assets и long-range precision weapons, including hypersonic, to ensure the survivability of combat aircraft in the event of a sudden enemy strike, only the possibility of dispersing combat aircraft over small camouflaged airfields can help.

The combination of VTOL aircraft and developed services for the operational deployment of mobile airfields will make it possible to create a fleet of combat aircraft that is most resistant to deep attacks by the enemy.

And, of course, VTOL aircraft will find their niche in the Russian naval navy (Navy).
Author:
Photos used:
Amntksoyuz.ru, journal.almaz-antey.ru
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 8 October 2021 05: 02
    +20
    I read the article with great interest and felt pride both for the Soviet aircraft designers and for the time when they managed to do much more than they had planned.
    And, of course, your niche VTOL will find and in the Russian navy (Navy).

    The matter is small: create new VTOL aircraft and build ships where they will find their places ...
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 8 October 2021 05: 55
      +19
      Quote: ROSS 42

      The matter is small: create new VTOL aircraft and build ships where they will find their places ...

      One more "little thing" needs to be done - it is to establish, in Russian realities, at least a small-scale production of the aforementioned R579-300 turbojet engines. Don't go to his grandmother (production) no trace... There seem to be 26 of them in total, and I suspect that all of them were produced in the USSR, since the engine has been produced since 1984. And so yes, we will produce engines, we will create vertical take-off aircraft and "the cherry on the cake" - we will rivet aircraft carriers for all this. drinks Business then .. fellow
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 8 October 2021 07: 20
        +7
        The author praised the Soviet school of aircraft / engine building, but slightly "pulled away" from reality ... The recent problems and tragedy during the flight of the new Il 114 transporter revealed real difficulties in these industries ...
        1. avg avg
          avg avg 8 October 2021 13: 42
          -2
          And yet not all farms have warm toilets! And the author is there - give him a VTOL aircraft!
          1. Cb master
            Cb master 10 October 2021 23: 02
            +2
            Well, yes, well, yes, until each yaranga has a warm toilet, discussing the new repertoire of the Bolshoi Theater is blasphemy laughing
        2. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 8 October 2021 19: 34
          +2
          The Il-112 fell, and the 114 machine was created back in the USSR.
          1. The leader of the Redskins
            The leader of the Redskins 8 October 2021 20: 32
            +2
            Yes. Really confused. Thanks for the fix.
          2. Timx
            Timx 9 October 2021 08: 10
            +1
            The Il-112 fell, and the 114 machine was created back in the USSR.

            Well, even if only from the numbering in the designation one could guess that the Il-112 program was launched earlier than the Il-114 ...
            And the fact that they have been tinkering with it for almost 40 years does not make it a `` novelty '' of the aviation industry.
        3. alystan
          alystan 15 October 2021 14: 05
          0
          At the same time, he no less, and maybe even more, did it in relation to the United States, but "forgetting" to note where the "flying penguin's" legs "grow" from:
          When they talk about the small distribution of VTOL aircraft, they forget that this technology itself is much more complicated - not every country can handle it. For example, tiltroplanes are still very little widespread, even we do not have them, despite the rather developed aviation industry, while few doubt the efficiency and prospects of tiltrotors. With VTOL aircraft, the situation is similar - it is quite difficult to build them without technical groundwork. In fact, only the United States has been able to do this in the XNUMXst century.
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 8 October 2021 08: 32
        0
        Quote: Proxima
        One more "little thing" needs to be done ...

        ... to recruit and train flight crews to operate in real conditions.
        1. Andrey Selivanov
          Andrey Selivanov 9 October 2021 13: 28
          -1
          You first find at least one constructor.
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 9 October 2021 14: 18
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Selivanov
            You first find at least one constructor.

            What do you mean? That Russia is not able to create aircraft engines?
            fool Against the wall ...
      3. ja-ja-vw
        ja-ja-vw 8 October 2021 21: 13
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        Don't go to your grandmother; there is no trace of it (production).

        Р579СПС-300 engine offered in several versions with rods from 11,3 tf (with 0,8 bypass) to 16 tf (in single-circuit version). And without the afterburner! The modern version of the GG-179 gas generator is suitable for the "heart" of the engine in versions with a bypass ratio, for example, from 3,2 and higher, including with a geared fan drive, which is in demand for subsonic aircraft of various classes.
        R79V-300 based on it GTE-30-300 - gas turbine power plant with a capacity of 30 MW
        seems to be released
        R79M-300
        R179-300
        1. Mikhail Shilo
          Mikhail Shilo 9 October 2021 10: 39
          +3
          A very vague concept is proposed. Offered in a promotional brochure?
          Are all these modifications in metal? No. Have your advertising characteristics been confirmed at the stands?
          And who bought and operates at least one version of this wonderful engine? What aircraft does he fly? There is no such thing.
          To promise is not to marry.
          1. ja-ja-vw
            ja-ja-vw 9 October 2021 11: 07
            -2
            Quote: Mikhail Shilo
            your advertising characteristics

            they are not mine"
            the question was: "are the technologies lost?"
            the answer is no.
            Shl. I also know about "mil * polymers"
          2. Timx
            Timx 9 October 2021 13: 16
            -1
            No. Have your advertising characteristics been confirmed at the stands?

            They would be happy to take off some characteristics, but they cut their own test station in Turaevo near Moscow with an autogenous machine and handed it over to the metal, well we got ahead of ourselves in time and managed to seize some valuable devices))) Still, once upon a time there were one enterprise ... And now that's it, it's too late to drink Borjomi (or whatever the Armenians have instead request ) there is no design bureau, no test room, no staff, nothing of their own (except for a funny instagram, and a dozen Armenian students who now cook them bright presentations for exhibitions). I don’t understand how it’s possible to discuss this “creativity” seriously.
            At the very least, only the general director speaks Russian among them, since he managed to learn it back in the Soviet Union. At the current MAKS, the people from the industry tore their bellies up, listening to their nonsense.
        2. Timx
          Timx 9 October 2021 12: 53
          +1
          R79V-300 based on it GTE-30-300 - gas turbine power plant with a capacity of 30 MW
          seems to be released
          R79M-300
          R179-300

          And where are they produced, may I ask? True, I'm curious ... Maybe they have their own factory which appeared for the first time in 70 years?
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 8 October 2021 08: 11
      +2
      An engine with 23 tons of thrust will probably solve many problems of fighter aircraft, but is there such an engine in reality or is it a matter of the distant future?
    3. bayard
      bayard 8 October 2021 08: 46
      +7
      Quote: ROSS 42
      The case is small: create new VTOL aircraft and build ships,

      The task for the development of the VTOL aircraft program was given back in 2015 by the Yakovlev Design Bureau, since then a message has appeared about a new modification of the P79-300 engine in the P579-300 appearance described in the article with the characteristics (if they are correct) more than worthy. The only question is - have these characteristics been confirmed at least by bench tests? And if so, then, in principle, there is also a suitable glider, for the implementation of this aircraft VVP - the same "Chek-Met", which under the covers looked exactly like a VTOL aircraft. It's up to the implementation.
      And if everything works out, then by its appearance there will be ships for their basing - the very two UDCs laid in Kerch last year.
      But the main question for the engine is whether it is in the metal.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 8 October 2021 22: 32
        0
        I strongly hope that you are right. hi
        1. bayard
          bayard 8 October 2021 23: 05
          0
          It will be strong if the engine is really in metal.
          But here's a colleague
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          ja-ja-vw (Lieutenant Rzhevsky)

          Claims that there is a power gas turbine based on this engine, so there is hope. Moreover, such an engine would be quite suitable, and not only for VTOL aircraft, but also, say, for a promising MRA aircraft based on an enlarged Su-34 airframe or even Su-57 (with a cockpit like the Su-34) - a very good sea missile carrier would turn out for the GZUR PK ...
          And as a backup option in case of failure with the "Product-30" - also an option. After all, he already initially has a variable contour, and the power is more significant. True, it is larger, and linearly, and in weight (about 2060 kg.), But with such power it is definitely not a vice.
          hi
          1. Timx
            Timx 9 October 2021 08: 48
            +3
            It will be strong if the engine is really in metal.

            I can assure you that the engine is not foreseen either in the near or in the long term (I am now talking exclusively about aviation applications, this is especially important to emphasize) and this is the key conclusion that a person who has visited an aircraft engine plant at least once can make for himself. , even if even on an excursion)))
            PS
            Here below in the comments, a colleague gave a link to them with permission to say `` corporate Instagram ''))) I strongly advise you to look at what the doctor prescribed on Saturday morning, I hope after reading all the questions will disappear by themselves ... Maybe then share your impressions, since I still had the pleasure to get to know this `` great team '' personally about 15 years ago and the impressions still have not been erased from my memory ...
            https://www.instagram.com/soyuz_amntk/
            1. bayard
              bayard 9 October 2021 15: 43
              -1
              Quote: TimX
              I can assure you that the engine is not foreseen either in the near or in the long term.

              It's sad if so.
              But if, nevertheless, an energy version of such an engine (turbine) exists, then it is much easier to revive the production of an aviation version, especially using the backlog.
              Remember the history of the revival of the NK-32 engines, there was absolutely devastation there - empty (from equipment and machine tools) workshops with broken glass. But it worked out. For the task was set and the funds were allocated.
              The fact that information about the P579-300 has been circulating in the press several times lately testifies to the fact that someone is promoting this topic, pushing it forward. So there is something for - there is a topic.
              Why did the single-engine Su-75 turn out to be exactly like this?
              Most adapted for VTOL aircraft?
              And the fact that almost everything can fail in our country is an obvious and already familiar thing. This is due to the quality of government as a whole, and the lack of control over the implementation of government programs and the responsibility of officials.
              So far, one can attest to the fact that certain Kremlin towers are interested in the VTOL theme. There is no doubt that other towers will actively oppose and sabotage this.
              In any case, it can be argued that the Р79-300 engine was produced in a limited series (more than 80 units) and there were projects for the development of this engine (Р279-300 bought from the exhibition by the Chinese, they are now trying to sculpt its clone for their J-20, but the "stone flower" does not come out among the Chinians).
              It is also known that in recent years those few engineers of the Yakovlev Design Bureau have been dragging around with an engine and a rotary nozzle. No one doubted that the plane as a whole could not be pulled by them, perhaps that is why the Su-75 appeared in this guise.
              Will they be plundered?
              Will they work?
              Maybe .
              But if, nevertheless, the topic is taken under control, it may work out.
              Especially if you come up with this engine and other (not only VTOL) application.
              1. Timx
                Timx 9 October 2021 17: 12
                +2
                This engine was given to you))) In terms of its technical level, it got stuck in the early 1970s and no modernization can rejuvenate it. And even more so, who will do it - AMNTK Soyuz, as an engine-building company, has not been operating for more than 20 years, and what they are promoting now is a funny instagram and 10 Armenian students who fled from the draft in Karabakh and were enrolled in a budget quota in MAI and Mendeleevka, who do not speak Russian, but are capable of making a couple of powerpoint presentations according to the data remaining in the archives of the once famous Mikulin company ... This is a very sad sight in fact - to watch one sly-assed Armenian mock at the cradle of the Soviet aircraft engine building.
                So, do not allocate a single penny of budgetary money to these swindlers, knowing that we will definitely not wait for the engine - this will be an indicator that the government, as you yourself said, "took to mind" wink
                PS
                And on the good, the activities of the current `` management '' of the AMNTK Union should have long been occupied by the prosecutor's office and the investigative committee (for their actions, even under the laws of the most liberal states of the United States, they would have shone a couple of life sentences).
                1. bayard
                  bayard 9 October 2021 17: 32
                  0
                  Armenians, you say ... it's sad.
                  But the touch on the engine was good.
                  I am worried that the "Product-30" is still tortured, and that there is no alternative in case of their failure.
                  Quote: TimX
                  This is a very sad sight in fact - to watch one sly-assed Armenian mock the cradle of the Soviet

                  So, sprinkle ashes on your head?
                  Our "Unique Strategic Advantage" is all about ... love?
                  Quote: TimX
                  So do not allocate a dime of budgetary money to these swindlers, knowing that we will definitely not wait for the engine - this will be an indicator that the authorities, as you yourself said, "took to their minds."

                  Or maybe swindlers with a broom from a well-deserved institution?
                  After all, when the NK-32 burned down, everything was restored from the ruins. And now on its base and NK-23D for PAK DA and "Ruslan" sculpt.
                  After all, the P79-300 was indeed a very promising engine. Moreover, its further modifications.
                  Quote: TimX
                  They, with all their desire, are not able to explain what is depicted on their charts.

                  I also got hung up on that graph / table / diagram. Some funny pictures with arrows. It would not be easy to bring tabular data with the prescribed list ...
                  You upset me.
                  1. Timx
                    Timx 9 October 2021 18: 02
                    +1
                    You upset me
                    Yes, fullness, there is nothing to be upset here, life flows, everything changes before our eyes. We must now focus on the main projects, and not produce another zoo among the troops - now from engines. Systematic work on the Product 30 project is the right path for today, especially since the Americans have now seized on it and, apparently, the progress of work will noticeably accelerate.
                    After all, the P79-300 was indeed a very promising engine.

                    These are our emotional assessments, received back in the pre-Internet era (when I saw him for the first time at MAKS, in 1999, he freaked out from the sight of this bandura and the demonstration of the rotary nozzle)) But now this is just an excellent museum exhibit, but no more .. Modern requirements for aircraft engines require developers to achieve maximum specific parameters in terms of thrust and weight, which this bandura could not provide even at the time of its creation (namely the inability of AMNTK Soyuz to create an engine with the required thrust and mass while maintaining the resource and fuel consumption in any acceptable framework and put an end to the Yak-141 project, and then all subsequent projects.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 9 October 2021 22: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: TimX
                      ... Modern requirements for aircraft engines require developers to achieve maximum specific parameters for thrust and weight, which this bandura could not provide even at the time of its creation.

                      Wait, wait, let's go with numbers.
                      P79-300. Years of creation 1975 - 1984
                      Dry weight - 1850 kg.
                      Thrust swing. without afterburner - 11 kg.
                      Takeoff thrust - 14 kg.
                      Thrust swing. afterburner - 15 500 kg.
                      The degree of pressure increase is 22.
                      Do you really think this sucks for the late 80s?
                      But the Sukhoi Design Bureau did not think so, and planned these engines for its promising Su-47 "Berkut", moreover, already in the modification of the Р179В-300 with a swing. afterburner thrust 18 kg. And ed. S-500, and ed. 32C was also planned with this engine.
                      Not with AL-31F.
                      And not even with the AL-41F.
                      Why do you think?
                      Why did the Sukhoi Design Bureau choose this particular engine for its promising machines?
                      Maybe just because its characteristics met the requirements for the fighters of the future?
                      And if today, in the same dimensions and weights, 14 kg.with \ 000 kg.f. are declared. , then isn't this exactly what is needed for a promising single-engine fighter?
                      Is it larger than the AL-31F?
                      Yes, but he is also much more powerful than him.
                      Even in the Р179В-300 version, its characteristics are those to which the "Product-30" of their competitor stubbornly strives today.
                      Do you think competition is harmful?
                      I think it is necessary.
                      First of all, for insurance against failure (and it is very likely for the "Product-30"), and, of course, to speed up the development and debugging process itself.
                      Is it more expensive?
                      But we get two engines.
                      Lyulkovites have set too high a bar for themselves (operating temperatures, dimensions and weights), but they clearly cannot cope with the task.
                      But they are not in a hurry either - there are no competitors. You can pull bagpipes and budget funds.
                      And if a competitor appears? Let in a slightly higher dimension and weights, but MUCH more powerful.
                      And versatile.
                      For one of its modifications, the P134-300, was planned to be installed on supersonic business aircraft.
                      And using its gas generator for a civilian engine of large bypass, we could get a very good engine for (say) Il-96, Tu-204 \ 214, and, in principle, even for Ruslan.
                      This is true for the times when there was someone to do it.
                      Perhaps now cunning Armenians have settled there and want to cheat everyone on money ... But this does not mean that the engine is bad.
                      The Chinese have been struggling for almost 20 years over a copy of the Р179В-300 for their J-20, dreaming of getting a 5th generation engine ... Does it suck for you? But its characteristics are almost the same as those of the F-35. In everything, including dry matter.
                      So sorry, but your opinion seems to me biased.
                      Although perhaps you are right about the cunning Armenians.
                      But I'm talking about the engine.
                      I am sure that if the official work on this project began now, the Lyulkovites would either give out the finished product in the shortest possible time, or admit their insolvency. They have already missed the deadline several times.
                      Quote: TimX
                      this bandura could not provide even at the time of its creation (it was the inability of AMNTK Soyuz to create an engine with the required thrust and mass while maintaining the resource and fuel consumption in any acceptable framework and put an end to the Yak-141 project, and then all subsequent projects.

                      And nevertheless, this bandura allowed the Yak-141 to set a whole bunch of world records, to provide higher performance than the MiG-29 in terms of combat load, maximum range, combat radius ... and equal thrust-to-weight ratio. At the same time, providing the Yak-141 with a combat radius almost equal to the radius of the newest American then F-18.
                      How so ?
                      What's wrong with this engine?
                      Today, on its basis, a power gas turbine GTE-30-300, with a capacity of 30 MW, has been created. And this already speaks about the resource potential, and about the possibilities to become the basis of a powerful aircraft engine with a large bypass.
                      Quote: TimX
                      do not produce another zoo

                      At one time, at such a competitive "zoo", all progress was held in our country. Remember why the Sukhoi Design Bureau was revived?
                      For the MiG competition!
                      And if the Lyulkovites do not have a competitor, they will not please us with the new engine right up to the Makovkin plot ... Or when the cancer on the mountain will master the artistic whistle.
                      1. ada
                        ada 9 October 2021 22: 52
                        +1
                        .
                        bayard
                        Or when the cancer on the mountain has mastered the artistic whistle.

                        So he's tired already. Here you need to replace an imported hearing aid with a domestic one, and preferably with implantation directly into the brain!
                      2. Timx
                        Timx 10 October 2021 10: 43
                        0
                        Wow, wow, you rolled the sheet while I was sleeping))) laughing
                        There is a dilemma, however: how to answer you, so that it turns out exhaustively and at the same time does not surpass your opus by an order of magnitude in volume, and the prospect of spending the last warm Sunday buried in the screen is not very happy ... what
                        Let's move further discussion to the evening, okay?
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 10 October 2021 16: 22
                        0
                        I'm waiting .
                        We, too, have nothing good weather.
                    2. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 11 October 2021 22: 22
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      First of all, for insurance against failure (and it is very likely for the "Product-30"), and, of course, to speed up the development and debugging process itself.

                      By and large, the engine has already been created, the end result is a matter of a couple of years.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Lyulkovites have set too high a bar for themselves (operating temperatures, dimensions and weights), but they clearly cannot cope with the task.
                      But they are not in a hurry either - there are no competitors. You can pull bagpipes and budget funds.

                      Cope - about a dozen engines of varying degrees of completeness are tested on the ground and in the air, and are being finalized. They will get specific characteristics, take 100, and then 450 hours, and you can start a series.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And nevertheless, this bandura allowed the Yak-141 to set a whole bunch of world records, to provide higher performance than the MiG-29 in terms of combat load, maximum range, combat radius ... and equal thrust-to-weight ratio.

                      According to the books, the experienced Yak-141 had a practical range of 1400 km, and the serial MiG-29 (9-12), according to the flight manual, was 1430 km, so the parity. Regarding the load, for early cars it is limited by the carrying capacity of the holders, the 9-12 carries up to four BD3-UMK2-B with one 500 kg load each, but when modified they can be equipped with an MBD3-U2T with two 500 kg weights, for a total of 4000 kg ...
                    3. bayard
                      bayard 11 October 2021 22: 45
                      -1
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Cope - about a dozen engines of varying degrees of completeness are tested on the ground and in the air, and are being finalized.

                      And from what year were they expected in the series?
                      God forbid, of course, to finish eating and let the series go. That's just ...
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      They will get specific characteristics, take 100, and then 450 hours, and you can start a series.

                      Is this an estimated resource?
                      Or just an operating time at the stand / flying laboratory?
                      The fact is that if the resource ... then it is not very encouraging, even to begin with.
                      And what are the characteristics? They were called swing. afterburner thrust 18 kgf and 000 kgf at different temperature regimes of the turbine ... For an engine with such modest dimensions and weights, these characteristics are very good.
                      But ... what is the expected resource?
                      Domestic engines have never been famous for a good resource, but today it is the resource that largely determines the fate of both the engine and the aircraft.

                      Therefore, I still think that if there is a real possibility of reviving the P79-300 program in the form of P579-300, then such a game is worth the candle. And if there are doubts about the reliability and good intentions of the Armenians who saddled it ... the Armenians should be sent to strengthen the scientific and technical potential of Armenia. But the country and the industry need such a promising engine.
                      And as an alternative / reserve, and in case of the revival of the MRA based on bombers with an enlarged Su-34 glider or even Su-57 (with a two-seater cockpit like the Su-34) as carriers of the GZUR PK. Such aircraft would be an excellent replacement for the old Tu-22M3. And it is the characteristics of the P579-300 that make it possible to make them that way.
                    4. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 12 October 2021 11: 39
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      And from what year were they expected in the series?

                      2024 is the deadline for the completion of the ROC.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Is this an estimated resource?
                      Or just an operating time at the stand / flying laboratory?
                      The fact is that if the resource ... then it is not very encouraging, even to begin with.

                      The resource will constantly grow, over time there will be 1000, 2000, 4000 hours, etc. NK-25 series 2, say, has a service life of 450 hours, while an airplane has 6000 hours.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And what are the characteristics?

                      This information is not subject to disclosure, it is easy to sit on your lip for it. We can say that the characteristics are better than those of the previous products, i.e. Pf> 15000 kgf, Pm> 9000 kgf, Court cr. <0,68 kg (kgf h), M <1600 kg.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Therefore, I still think that if there is a real possibility of reviving the P79-300 program in the form of P579-300, then such a game is worth the candle.

                      For existing aircraft, it is too monstrous, even larger and heavier than the D-30F6. And why should he, when there is product 117, on the basis of which they plan to create several more engines.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And as an alternative / reserve, and in case of the revival of the MRA based on bombers with an enlarged Su-34 glider or even Su-57 (with a two-seater cockpit like the Su-34) as carriers of the GZUR PK.

                      They are already making PAK DA with products of the Russian Federation, as a missile carrier, this aircraft will be much more powerful.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Such aircraft would be an excellent replacement for the old Tu-22M3.

                      The oldies have more than half of the resource in stock.
                    5. bayard
                      bayard 12 October 2021 14: 16
                      -1
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      2024 is the deadline for the completion of the ROC.

                      This is after the failure - a new line shifted to the right. Formerly called 2018.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      The resource will constantly grow, over time there will be 1000, 2000, 4000 hours

                      The AL-41F-1S has a resource of 4000 hours ...
                      And you promise 500 ... 1000 ... some kind of "bandura" that has been molded for the second decade ... which will cost just fantastic money ... and will work for 500 - 1000 hours ??
                      Have you seen the engine resource for the F-35? For the F-22?
                      Just put the numbers side by side and compare ... No.
                      Nobody will ever buy such nonsense!
                      And our Su-30 lost several contracts to the F-16 only because the RESOURCE of the AL-31F engines does not exceed 2500 hours!
                      And during life they have to be changed a couple of times - at least.
                      TWO ENGINES!
                      And the F-16 has one engine and it is enough for almost the entire life cycle. And if you change, so only ONE.
                      We are not the Soviet Union with its unlimited resources and a clear super task. We have CAPITALISM! And with him, all expenses are very carefully considered.
                      And we are not in the 50s - 60s, when resources were sacrificed in the race for power.
                      Our entire fleet of Su-30SM and Su-34 is being transferred to AL-41F-1S not at all for the sake of an increase in thrust, but for the sake of RESOURCE - still 4000 hours more than 2500 ...
                      I didn’t make the assumption that the "Product-30" could fail.
                      Lyulkovites have taken too high a bar for themselves - to get an engine with a capacity of 18 - 20 tf. in the dimension of AL-31.
                      And everything seemed to be calculated well - new materials, blade geometry, fewer stages for turbines (high and low pressure), supercritical temperature ...
                      But this requires a VERY effective organization of heat removal, because the temperatures are supercritical ... And the heat capacity of the engine itself is ... small. And as a result - the slightest failure with the heat sink ... the slightest violation of the stability of the heat sink ... And that's it.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Quote: bayard
                      And what are the characteristics?

                      This information is not subject to disclosure, it is easy to sit on your lip for it. We can say that the characteristics are better than those of the previous products, i.e. Pf> 15000 kgf, Pm> 9000 kgf, Court cr. <0,68 kg (kgf h), M <1600 kg.

                      This is the AL-41.
                      The "Product-30" was called a max. non-afterburner - 11 kg.f, and afterburner, depending on the temperature regime - from 000 kg.f to 18 kg.f.
                      And most likely the second figure (19,5 tons) will not be for the sake of resource availability.
                      But after all, 18 t.f. does not come out either. with a normal resource.
                      Now about the sizes and weights.
                      AL-41F-1S:
                      - dry weight - 1608 kg.
                      - length - 4990 mm.
                      - diameter - 1180 mm.
                      - thrust - 8 800 \ 14 000 kg.s. , special mode 14 kg.s.
                      Р79-300 (for subsequent modifications, the dimensions and weights did not change much):
                      - dry weight - 1850 kg. (!)
                      - length - 4780 mm. (!!)
                      - diameter - 1390 mm.
                      - thrust - 11 000 \ 15 500 kg.p. (and this is for the engine of the mid-80s !!!).
                      But already the R179V-300 had 18 kg of thrust. afterburner.
                      And 13 kg.s. - swing. without afterburner. (!!)
                      And the P579-300 has a declared thrust:
                      - swing. without afterburner - 14 kg.
                      - afterburner - 23 kg.f. (!!!)
                      True, the weight of the P579-300 has grown to almost 2060 kg.

                      How's the comparison?
                      How did the "bandura" suddenly turn out to be shorter than the AL-41F-1C?
                      And the heaviest is 250 kg ??
                      Already the R179V-300 gave out characteristics like the modern engine of the F-35.
                      To which "Product-30" cannot be reached by definition.
                      Because 11 kg.s. will never turn into 000 kg.f. (F-13).
                      And in Р179В-300 they were laid from the beginning!
                      All the characteristics required by the "Product" today were given by the R179V-300 back in the 00s.
                      Was it a little heavier? smile
                      Slightly larger in diameter?
                      Who would have noticed these 500 kg (on two engines)?
                      On the same Su-57. lol
                      With its capacity margin?
                      You understand that if it were not for nonsense, sabotage, corruption and other delights of the new Russian Federation, the T-50 would ORIGINALLY have the engine it needs!
                      Without any stages !!!
                      And with much better characteristics than the FUTURE (?) "Products-30".
                      At the same time, the Р179В-300 had the prospect of growing into Р579-300. yes
                      And the "Product-30" has very dubious prospects for being born and reaching the series ... and no prospects for growth in power characteristics.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      it is too monstrous, even larger and heavier than the D-30F6.

                      For such a statement, it would be worth looking at the reference book first. repeat
                      So D-30F6:
                      - dry weight - 2416 kg. (Oops...)
                      - length without reverse - 8000 mm.
                      - thrust 9 500 \ 15 500 kg.f.

                      Do you refresh your memory before HOW to write?
                      Where did you see the "monstrosity" ??
                      It is SHORT (!) AL-41F-1C, and almost twice (!) Shorter than D-30F6.
                      At the same time, even in its first version, it had afterburner thrust like the D-30F6, and without afterburner it significantly exceeded the monster.
                      No wonder the Sukhoi Design Bureau saw ALL its new cars ONLY with the P79-300 and its descendants !!! And in the late 80s and late 90s.
                      All that Poghosyan did was sabotage of pure water.
                      The lobbying of KB Lyulka is difficult to condemn - they fought for a place in the sun ... They had money ... They could afford some liberties with self-financing ...
                      But it was Poghosyan who became the true traitor of the magnificent and extremely promising engine.
                      ... Cunning Armenians again?
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      They are already making PAK DA with products of the Russian Federation, as a missile carrier, this aircraft will be much more powerful.

                      Have you seen the dimensions of this hypothetical monster?
                      Does it look like a rapid reaction force?
                      How much to cook such a fool for a flight?
                      And how long will she chap on the subsonic, when you need to tear the claws at all the afterburners in order to disrupt the missile salvo of enemy ships ??
                      Do you understand exactly what the Naval Missile Aviation exists for?
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Quote: bayard
                      Such aircraft would be an excellent replacement for the old Tu-22M3.

                      The oldies have more than half of the resource in stock.

                      They have no resource whatsoever.
                      For modernization, out of the existing ones, there are still 30 pieces. can not take away.
                      I'm not sure that they will take at least half of what they want.
                      They have metal fatigue, especially the swing arms. In principle, they have a highly loaded glider and they are not initially capable of being long-livers. Now they are combat-ready only because in the 90s and 00s they almost did not fly.

                      As a carrier of new anti-ship missiles, GZUR needs new carriers.
                      Su-30 not to offer.
                      Even the Su-34 in its original form is not suitable. But it suits as a base.
                      And now, by proportionally increasing the size of the glider and raising the takeoff weight to approx. 80+ tons, we can get an excellent naval missile carrier - a tool for quick response to any threats from the sea. At the same time, its range will be higher than that of the Tu-22M3, and the ability to stand up for itself (explosive missiles for self-defense), and high supersonic speed ... and the ability to carry two, and if necessary, three GZURs, or any other anti-ship missiles or other anti-ship missiles for other purposes.
                      For Long-Range Aviation, such a bomber would also be interesting.

                      But unfortunately, only a person with state will and reason can make such decisions.
                      There are none on the horizon ...
                      But "Poghosyans" of all stripes are a dime a dozen.
                      hi
                    6. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 12 October 2021 23: 35
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      This is after the failure - a new line shifted to the right. Formerly called 2018.

                      What kind of failure are we talking about? The work began in 2011, the first flight was planned for 2018 as part of the T-50 flying laboratory.

                      Quote: bayard
                      The AL-41F-1S has a resource of 4000 hours ...

                      2000 renewable up to 4000.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Do you promise

                      I don't promise, every aircraft engine goes through this.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Have you seen the engine resource for the F-35? For the F-22?

                      P&W does not have an assigned resource, they are operated according to their technical condition.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And the F-16 has one engine and it is enough for almost the entire life cycle. And if you change, so only ONE.

                      Of course, one engine will not be enough for the entire life cycle. The engine consists of several large modules, during their service they are changed entirely and more than once, but the engine is formally the same.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Our entire fleet of Su-30SM and Su-34 is being transferred to AL-41F-1S not at all for the sake of an increase in thrust, but for the sake of RESOURCE - still 4000 hours more than 2500 ...

                      There are several reasons, one cannot be distinguished.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And everything seemed to be calculated well - new materials, blade geometry, fewer stages for turbines (high and low pressure), supercritical temperature ...

                      There are no changes in the turbines - the HPT and LPT are still single-stage.

                      Quote: bayard
                      But this requires a VERY effective organization of heat removal, because temperatures are supercritical

                      Heat sink of what? Where?

                      Quote: bayard
                      The "Product-30" was called a max. non-afterburner - 11 kg.f, and afterburner, depending on the temperature regime - from 000 kg.f to 18 kg.f.

                      They could only be called "talking heads" and "experts". We can only say that all the main characteristics have improved. All specific numbers from the Internet are just fantasy.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Р79-300 (for subsequent modifications, the dimensions and weights did not change much):
                      - dry weight - 1850 kg. (!)
                      - length - 4780 mm. (!!)
                      - diameter - 1390 mm.
                      - thrust - 11 000 \ 15 500 kg.p. (and this is for the engine of the mid-80s !!!).

                      The handbook gives the following information on Р79В-300: weight 2750 kg, thrust on the PF 15500 kgf, thrust at maximum 10500 kgf, length 5230 mm, maximum diameter 1716 mm. Everything is not so rosy anymore.

                      Quote: bayard
                      For such a statement, it would be worth looking at the reference book first. repeat
                      So D-30F6:

                      The D-30F6 is so long and heavy because of the FKS flame tube, the length of which is due to the need to fit the new engine into the existing airframe.



                      Quote: bayard
                      Have you seen the dimensions of this hypothetical monster?
                      Does it look like a rapid reaction force?
                      How much to cook such a fool for a flight?
                      And how long will she chap on the subsonic, when you need to tear the claws at all the afterburners in order to disrupt the missile salvo of enemy ships ??
                      Do you understand exactly what the Naval Missile Aviation exists for?

                      Does not matter. Tu-22M3 also flies at subsonic speed.

                      Quote: bayard
                      They have no resource whatsoever.

                      And there is.
                    7. bayard
                      bayard 13 October 2021 02: 24
                      -1
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      There are several reasons, one cannot be distinguished.

                      Unification, resource, traction gain.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Heat sink of what? Where?

                      From the turbine blades, of course. And not only .
                      Quote: Lozovik

                      Quote: bayard
                      The "Product-30" was called a max. non-afterburner - 11 kg.f, and afterburner, depending on the temperature regime - from 000 kg.f to 18 kg.f.

                      They could only be called "talking heads" and "experts". We can only say that all the main characteristics have improved. All specific numbers from the Internet are just fantasy.

                      There is always a technical assignment for any product, each developer pursues a specific goal. And the "Product" is not a modernization / development of previous models - the diameter is slightly larger, the length is slightly shorter, the temperature on the blades is higher, and variable contour is also declared.

                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Quote: bayard
                      Р79-300 (for subsequent modifications, the dimensions and weights did not change much):
                      - dry weight - 1850 kg. (!)
                      - length - 4780 mm. (!!)
                      - diameter - 1390 mm.
                      - thrust - 11 000 \ 15 500 kg.p. (and this is for the engine of the mid-80s !!!).

                      The handbook gives the following information on Р79В-300: weight 2750 kg, thrust on the PF 15500 kgf, thrust at maximum 10500 kgf, length 5230 mm, maximum diameter 1716 mm. Everything is not so rosy anymore.

                      You didn’t have a rotary nozzle, did you count it?
                      A number of reference books give invariably non-afterburning thrust - 11 kg.f. (to be exact - 000 kg.f.).
                      And the reduced weight and linear dimensions are the same.
                      Where did you get such a diameter?
                      Or is it with a rotary nozzle?
                      Or do you at Sukhoi Design Bureau think like burdocks and pests that they grabbed onto this engine and ordered its development, for the sake of a whole line of their promising aircraft? Moreover, for fighters of the 5th generation (and the Su-47 was positioned this way).
                      What reference books do you use?
                      I understand corporate solidarity, but the Lyulka Design Bureau will only benefit from healthy competition.

                      Quote: Lozovik
                      The D-30F6 is so long and heavy because of the FKS flame tube, the length of which is due to the need to fit the new engine into the existing airframe.

                      It is still heavier and larger in diameter, and the thrust is much lower (without afterburner) - 9 kg.f. against 500 10 kg.s.
                      And very gluttonous.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Does not matter. Tu-22M3 also flies at subsonic speed.

                      But he can make a prolonged supersonic dash with an emergency exit to the launch line and separation from pursuit.
                      PAK DA is interesting and promising precisely as a Long-Range Aviation aircraft, as a carrier of an ALCM arsenal. But for the MRA, it is precisely the supersonic machines that are needed. In addition, they are able to stand up for themselves in aerial combat, if necessary (to have an explosive missile on board for self-defense).
                      And the Russian Federation will not have the opportunity to build such a large number of PAK DA for DA and MPA - it will be too long and expensive.
                      And the enlarged Su-34 (or even the Su-57) can be obtained much faster and cheaper. And the same Irkutsk will be able to release them.
                      And that's exactly what an MPA needs.
                      After all, we will need to keep groups of such aircraft in several theaters at once:
                      - Northern Fleet,
                      - Black Sea Fleet ,
                      - the Pacific Fleet will need to keep two such groupings (regiment),
                      - and at least one (preferably two) regiment in reserve for emergency reinforcement of any direction and for deployment abroad. In the same Khmeimim - to control the Central Asian theater of operations and the threat to southern Europe.
                      It is unrealistic to do this on PAK DA. But on the enlarged Su-34 glider - quite. And for such a large airframe, an appropriate engine is needed. The "Product-30" could have come up as well ... but to be honest, the P179B-300 and even more so the P579-300 look preferable.
                      Yes, it is possible that the "cunning Armenians" have raised a wave and want to deceive everyone.
                      But!
                      The P79-300 engine was.
                      Р179В-300 - although he was a demonstrator, they believed in him and counted on him in the design bureaus of Yakovlev and Sukhoi.
                      So why not restart this program (Р179В-300 or immediately Р579-300) to celebrate the sudden trillions for the gas that has risen in price?
                      And oil?
                      And coal?
                      And metal? (And any)
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Quote: bayard
                      They have no resource whatsoever.

                      And there is.

                      How long will it last?
                      10 years?
                      So this is just as much as necessary for the new MRA aircraft to go to the troops in a large series. To replace the few remaining old men Tu-22M3.
                      Even if the modernization of 30 Tu-22M3 to M3M takes place (up to 5 units were found in the reserve and monuments by the factory workers, the rest will probably be scraped up from the availability of suitable ones), this number will not suit anyone. From strength they will be able to keep one direction.
                      And if we spread the squadron into three fleets, we won't get a special effect either. It is necessary to have about 150-200 PC GZUR carriers for more or less acceptable coverage of needs. And the enlarged Su-34 is ideal for such a series. Including the price of the project.
                      And the Lyulka design bureau will have enough work on the entire T-10 line. There will be enough orders for AL-31F, AL-41F-1C and, if possible, for "Product-30" for a long time.
                      But you need a RESOURCE.
                      The last contracts were lost largely due to the low resource of the engines.
                    8. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 24 October 2021 22: 57
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      From the turbine blades, of course. And not only .

                      Do you know any technical problems?

                      Quote: bayard
                      And the "Product" is not a modernization / development of previous models - the diameter is slightly larger, the length is slightly shorter, the temperature on the blades is higher, variable contour is also declared

                      The dimensions are the same since the engine is installed in the same nacelle as 117. The control of the air flow in the circuits should be on the next generation of engines.

                      Quote: bayard
                      You didn’t have a rotary nozzle, did you count it?
                      A number of reference books give invariably non-afterburning thrust - 11 kg.f. (to be exact - 000 kg.f.).
                      And the reduced weight and linear dimensions are the same.
                      Where did you get such a diameter?
                      Or is it with a rotary nozzle?

                      Diameter with a box of propulsion units and a "knee" of the rotary nozzle.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Or do you at Sukhoi Design Bureau with burdocks and pests think that they seized on this engine and ordered its development, for the sake of a whole line of their promising aircraft?

                      Well, with the C-37, they really pierced, the design turned out to be completely inoperative. At one time, ANPK MiG also relied on product 20 and even, unlike the Sukhoi MiG-1.44, flew on it. The result, however, is the same.

                      Quote: bayard
                      What reference books do you use?

                      If there are no books on construction, then I use Zrelov's reference book. In addition, he is the only one who leads the design and power scheme of the engine.



                      Quote: bayard
                      It is still heavier and larger in diameter

                      And what did the aforementioned C-37 fly?

                      Quote: bayard
                      And very gluttonous.

                      Even when compared with more modern engines such as the M88 or the Eurojet EJ200, the specific performance will be even better, and if we consider that the engine of the 70s ...

                      Quote: bayard
                      But he can make a prolonged supersonic dash with an emergency exit to the launch line and separation from pursuit.

                      Supersonic is not about the Tu-22M3 - the practical range at M = 1,3 is only 2000 km.

                      Quote: bayard
                      PAK DA is interesting and promising precisely as a Long-Range Aviation aircraft, as a carrier of an ALCM arsenal. But for the MRA, it is precisely the supersonic machines that are needed.

                      MRA needs missile carriers with a long flight range, preferably inconspicuous.

                      Quote: bayard
                      In addition, they are able to stand up for themselves in an air battle, if necessary (to have an explosive missile on board for self-defense).

                      The experience of using fighter-bombers in the Middle East allows us to draw unambiguous conclusions - IS cannot successfully conduct even defensive air battles with modern fighters. Although it makes sense to have long-range missiles with combined seeker for the destruction of carrier-based AWACS aircraft.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And the enlarged Su-34 (or even the Su-57) can be obtained much faster and cheaper.

                      Su-34 and so enlarged Su-27, how much more? In any case, the supersonic range will be even less than that of the Tu-22M3.

                      Quote: bayard
                      I could have approached the "Product-30" ... but to be honest, the Р179В-300 and even more so Р579-300 look preferable

                      The reality is this: out of this whole galaxy in the air, only the R-79V-300 was in the air, the R-79-300 was only on the stand, and then, they did not have resource tests. All that after we have in the form of pictures and layouts of varying degrees of elaboration.

                      Quote: bayard
                      How long will it last?
                      10 years?

                      Let's take the operating time of the Olenegorsk aircraft. In total, we have 1157 hours. How long will it last, subject to the extension of the service life, decide for yourself.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And if we spread the squadron into three fleets, we won't get a special effect either.

                      And who will give the long-range aircraft to the fleet?
                    9. bayard
                      bayard 25 October 2021 08: 14
                      0
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Quote: bayard
                      From the turbine blades, of course. And not only .

                      Do you know any technical problems?

                      No, I'm not so immersed in the topic, but I know that it has not yet reached the required resource and reliability. And that the temperatures on the blades are record-breaking ... and the engine is quite compact.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      The dimensions are the same since the engine is installed in the same nacelle as 117. The control of the air flow in the circuits should be on the next generation of engines.

                      Well, the diameter is slightly larger, the length is slightly smaller, and this is clearly visible in the filming / photographs of the Su-57 with both engines. But about the air control in the circuits ... I really thought it was a sinful thing (based on the reportage / film on "Zvezda" request) that all delays, incl. and due to the fact that they decided to collect all the innovations in one basket and because of this such delays.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      And what did the aforementioned C-37 fly?

                      "Corner of Heaven" tells that for the S-32 (he is the S-37 under Poghosyan, he is the Su-47 "Berkut"), the AL-41F was envisaged, and the D30F-6M was envisaged as a backup ... -31F. Relying on my own memory from publications of the 90s - early 00s, I always believed that there was AL-41F.
                      But times were hard, so the D30F-6M was installed on the prototype.
                      After all, it was generally planned as a deck one ... because of the expected better takeoff characteristics.

                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Supersonic is not about the Tu-22M3 - the practical range at M = 1,3 is only 2000 km.

                      But I was talking about the supersonic jerk / jerk - at the moment of the attack and when breaking away from the pursuit. Although, of course, the Tu-22M3 in range ... turned out to be rather weak, and even after the refueling rods were removed ... Many MRA pilots believed that the Tu-16 was better - the range was greater (7500 versus 5500 km.).
                      But I wrote about an enlarged version of the Su-34, with a take-off weight of up to 70 - 75 tons, with the engines "Product-30" or Р179В-300 or Р579-300. In this case, you can expect a range of up to 7000 km or more, when armed with two air versions of the "Zircon" or its analogs, and 4-6 explosive missiles.
                      We have examples of glider enlargement on the examples of the MiG-29K \ KUB, FВ-111, "Super Hornet", etc. - the fuselage is lengthened, the wing area is increased, as a result, the internal volumes for fuel and the payload increase.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      MRA needs missile carriers with a long flight range, preferably inconspicuous.

                      This is if you look for the lost AUG in the center of the ocean.
                      But we have a different task - to prevent enemy ships from reaching the range of a missile salvo or to the launch line of carrier-based aircraft (with CD on board). And here efficiency, mass scale and mobility are often important (the ability to quickly transfer to a new theater of operations for reinforcement).
                      And so a lot of aircraft (MPA) are needed - 150 minimum, 250 optimum.
                      We will never build so many PAK YES. For the most objective reasons.
                      And the MRA planes are needed yesterday.
                      Therefore, at the first stage, it is most reasonable to order three regiments on the Su-34M (which they promised to present this year, with an updated avionics and AL-41F-1S), and start designing its enlarged version.
                      Or the second option - the first stage of the 3rd regiment on the Su-34M, and the urgent development of an enlarged version of the Su-57, with increased internal volumes and a two-seater cockpit, with a landing similar to that of the Su-34.
                      The second option is more complicated and more expensive, it will take more time, but it is more promising. And such an aircraft would be quite suitable for DA as a medium bomber and long-range escort fighter.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      The reality is this: out of this whole galaxy in the air, only the R-79V-300 was in the air, the R-79-300 was only on the stand, and then, they did not have resource tests. All that after we have in the form of pictures and layouts of varying degrees of elaboration.

                      This is not the fault of the engine that it appeared at a time when there was no time for progress. And this engine was counted on both in the Sukhoi Design Bureau and in the Yakovlev Design Bureau (in which, it seemed, only the suit went). Therefore, it is a sin to scatter technologies and intellectual potential, if there is an opportunity to return to the project, it is necessary to return.
                      And judging by the declared characteristics, for the MRA P579-300 aircraft it would fit just perfectly.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      The experience of using fighter-bombers in the Middle East makes it possible to draw unambiguous conclusions - IS cannot successfully conduct even defensive air battles with modern fighters.

                      But during the Indo-Pakistani war, there was a case when a lonely Su-7B was suddenly attacked by a pair of Pakistani MiG-19s (Chinese assembly), they stuck a rocket into the nozzle (partially turning it around), but ... the Indian pilot made a combat turn and he beat off this pair so that one knocked down and the other put to flight.
                      And he returned to the airfield.
                      The Su-7B's destructive pedigree helped here.
                      And the Su-34 also has a destructive pedigree, and he can quite snap back.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      Let's take the operating time of the Olenegorsk aircraft. In total, we have 1157 hours. How long will it last, subject to the extension of the service life, decide for yourself.

                      What is their own age?
                      How were they stored?
                      How many years did you spend under the snowdrifts in winter?
                      This, after all, also affects the resource and technical condition.
                      I only know that the required number of Tu-22M3s for the modernization program have not yet been taken away.
                      Therefore, they do not rush with her.
                      Therefore, they excavate the groundwork at the plant and remove the monuments.
                      Quote: Lozovik
                      And who will give the long-range aircraft to the fleet?

                      Now on the contrary - the fleets were transferred to the infantry ...
                      And in the VKS, an infantryman is in command. yes
                      Professional approach.
                      If we are to revive the MRA, then leave it under the command of the Aerospace Forces and assign its regiments to the fleets in the framework of combat interaction.
  • Timx
    Timx 9 October 2021 08: 26
    +1
    The assignment for the development of the VTOL aircraft program was given back in 2015 by the Yakovlev Design Bureau

    Well, this is the `` fantasies '' of alternatives, the Yakovlev Design Bureau, or rather the resemblance that remains of it, is not able to bring the training Yak-130 to the level of a light attack aircraft, which would now be extremely in demand in the markets of Asia and the Middle East (traditional markets for the USSR). And you are still expecting "breakthroughs" from them, which even Lockheed Martin (the largest arms company in the world) did not dare to do alone.
    1. bayard
      bayard 9 October 2021 15: 50
      0
      Quote: TimX
      ... And you are still expecting "breakthroughs" from them, which even Lockheed Martin (the largest arms company in the world) did not dare to do alone.

      I'm not so much waiting as I admit. I admit the possibility of it. All the more so if the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the Yakovlev Design Bureau will deal with the topic, and the Yakovlevites only use the engine control system, takeoff and landing.
      So far, I estimate the probability of a positive outcome at 40%.
      If there is an engine, I will raise my estimate of the probability to 70, or even 80%.
      But this is possible only if power is taken over the mind.
  • Andrey Selivanov
    Andrey Selivanov 9 October 2021 13: 35
    -1
    Of course have! But that's all ... shhhh. Secret. It was created in secret underground laboratories, by secret scientists created in the same secret underground laboratories. Everything is strictly classified ... And that's why they don't show it to anyone. Nobody knows about it, because it is not for them to know. I’m going here somehow. Photographing one shop "Pyaterochka". Obviously a CIA agent, because he wants to photograph all our secrets and sell MI6.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 8 October 2021 11: 07
    0
    The ships are already under construction in Kerch. I was very glad that work in this direction continues in Russia. I thought that everything died along with Yak - 141. This cannot but rejoice)))
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 8 October 2021 17: 06
    0
    Such an aircraft, if built, will be in an unmanned version.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 8 October 2021 05: 07
    0
    Well, according to the flight range of the "vertical", mount the refueling system in the air. And the ventilator is, in any case, extra weight and the area of ​​the aircraft it occupies. So, alas, only the rotatable nozzle of the main engine is the only real option for vertebral launch of the aircraft.
    1. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 8 October 2021 11: 10
      0
      It can be done with a shortened takeoff, the dimensions of the UDC, which are being built in Kerch, allow it.
    2. Eug
      Eug 8 October 2021 13: 32
      +4
      With a single swivel nozzle, it is not possible to distribute thrust, therefore, not to balance the aircraft during takeoff and landing.
    3. Grits
      Grits 8 October 2021 20: 02
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      alas, only the rotatable nozzle of the main engine is the only real option for the vertical launch of the aircraft.

      I think our military already agree to any of them - if only it was.
      1. Timx
        Timx 9 October 2021 09: 43
        +1
        I think our military already agree to any of them - if only it was.

        As far as I understand from the experience of communicating with colleagues in the industry, the military (at least adequate middle-level employees) do not know how to get rid of the heap of crazy ideas pouring down on them in an endless stream from all cracks, and even often accompanied by warming up the public and leadership through the media. ..
        Despite the fact that really necessary and viable ideas and projects are not of interest primarily to the developers themselves ... Such is the paradox (or is it quite a regularity of our time?)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 8 October 2021 07: 10
      -4
      Nothing. There are empty squares. Not needed by anyone. Let them overgrow to evil enemies?)
    3. Thrifty
      Thrifty 8 October 2021 07: 15
      -4
      This is not a lease of one million hectares of the country, but a "gift" from the Kremlin to the Uzbeks, as earlier the Chinese gave at least half a million hectares for a great life!
      1. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 8 October 2021 10: 00
        +2
        and the Kremlin's "gift" to the Uzbeks

        I'm missing something. Have you already "given it away"? Only Uzbekistan's proposal was heard in the news. And you are already ... singing like a nightingale that you gave it away.
        1. avg avg
          avg avg 8 October 2021 13: 44
          +1
          He just needs to crow, and then let it not dawn at least!
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 8 October 2021 15: 17
            0
            If only crow

            lol good
  • Rvlad
    Rvlad 8 October 2021 08: 57
    +12
    The desire to reduce the costs associated with the presence of aerodromes, runways, etc. etc. is always there. Hence the suffering about VTOL aircraft. It would seem that everything is clear there. But no. From time to time there are such, not quite qualified, articles. So, it has long been proven that VTOL aircraft will ALWAYS be worse than a conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. Why? Therefore:
    - the relative volume of the VTOL power plant reaches 55-60% of the airframe volume. For SOVP, this value does not exceed 25-30%. This is despite the fact that the internal space of the airframe available for placement of equipment and devices is no more than 80% of the volume enclosed inside the washed surface of the airframe. There is nowhere to fill the fuel;
    - the axial moments of inertia of the VTOL aircraft due to the mass separation (the thrust has to be pulled along the glider, otherwise it will not be balanced when moving along the transitional sections of the trajectory) approximately 1,5 - 2 times higher than that of the VTOL aircraft. Hence the lethargy when maneuvering;
    - huge problems with aerothermogasdynamic impact on the underlying surface of the site from which takeoff is carried out or on which landing is carried out. Concrete explodes (if you take off with the afterburner, this is a known problem), gas outlet grids do not save (even in the 80s of the last century, this was understood, including during the development of the Yak-141), at a high outside temperature (above 25 degrees Celsius already difficulties arise) you cannot take off with a normal payload, and if, for some reason, you have worked in takeoff mode or close to it for more than 20-30 seconds and did not leave the platform, you can safely go to drink beer: you cannot take off. Air within a radius of 150-200 m will be heated to a temperature of 45-60 degrees. And until the wind blows it away and the site cools down, it is pointless to do anything (I know from my own experience). The temperature at the outlet of the WFD nozzle is not 200 degrees Celsius, but 500-600, at afterburner it reaches 2000. And how does the author of the article imagine to use afterburner modes?
    - a decrease in the temperature of the outflowing gases is possible by increasing the total air flow through the power plant. And this will simply inflate the plane to unimaginable proportions with subsequent problems (there are also sucking (pressing to the platform) forces, and they can reach up to 15% of the thrust force. 5% of traction). The only modification of the F-6, which can take off vertically with a significantly reduced payload, resembles a "pig" due to its bloat. And this aircraft is only for the Marine Corps, for air support near (under the nose) of an aircraft carrier.
    A large number of articles have been written on this topic, both in the Russian Federation and abroad. I would recommend to the author, before writing such articles and misleading readers to work through the scientific literature and then draw some conclusions and conclusions. And then below the people got excited, they started talking about pride ... but what about physics? She doesn't give a damn about pride ...
    1. Eug
      Eug 8 October 2021 13: 30
      +3
      Not to mention the fact that the maximum diameter of the engine mentioned in the article is 1.63 meters, and this is without power take-off units (or pressurized high pressure hoses) for the GDP. What will be the midsection of an airplane with such an engine?
    2. gridasov
      gridasov 8 October 2021 14: 03
      -2
      The question is precisely in the physics of the process. Nobody uses a whole complex of fundamental aspects that can be embodied in new movers. If for more than a hundred years Schauberger did not bother the designers, then my fifteen years will not help much. It is useless to explain the process algorithms for using the potential energy of the air. But now we can unequivocally say that there is a breakthrough and it is a matter of time who will own these technologies.
      1. Rvlad
        Rvlad 12 October 2021 14: 19
        0
        To gridasov: "It is useless to explain the process algorithms for using the potential energy of air" - could you explain what you mean and what this "potential energy of air" is
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 12 October 2021 17: 36
          -1
          Not a problem! Air, like water, are complex structures that, in addition to the kinetic energy of jets and flows in a dynamic state, have potential energy in the form of a transformable structure, which from kinetics manifests itself as cavitation, sonoluminescence, ionizing properties when it flows out from the surface. That is, depending on the dynamics of the flow, they show energy transformations. And on the propeller blades, propeller, turbine blades, air flows, and most importantly, the water vapor present exhibit negative qualities. Therefore, a device and method has been invented that use this potential energy and do not allow the flow to stall or cavitate. This means that the propeller can be spun up to speeds that are orders of magnitude higher without stalling the flow, etc.
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 12 October 2021 23: 12
            0
            Do you at least understand what kind of nonsense you are carrying ?: "with potential energy in the form of a transformable structure, which from kinetics manifest themselves as cavitation, sonoluminescence, ionizing properties when escaping from the surface" - what is a "transformable structure that ..."? And in relation to air (in this case it is impossible to speak of the continuity of the medium), what kind of ionizing properties do you mention and where do they come from?
          2. Rvlad
            Rvlad 12 October 2021 23: 13
            0
            Do you realize what nonsense you are talking about? What are these complex structures (what is this?), Which, in addition to the "energy of jets" (what is this?) ... in a dynamic state (what is this?) Have potential energy in the form of a transformable structure (what kind of animal is this?)? Answer, and then there will be the following questions, for each term ... I'm very interested, it looks like a psychiatrist should be invited
            1. gridasov
              gridasov 13 October 2021 08: 31
              -1
              Personally, I do not perceive people by what they say. There can be many motives. And by how deep his thoughts and reasoning are. In other words - the Potential of his inner perception of the world. Therefore, it is not a problem that we do not understand each other. The problem is visible in something else. Air and water behave completely differently at different flow rates and the algorithm of their state from the laminar and convection level of the dynamics of the process to the level of the destructive jet, stone and metal are inseparable. If this is not seen and understood, then it is already useless.
            2. gridasov
              gridasov 13 October 2021 09: 09
              -1
              Obviously, a person is not able to see many stages of how the air moves. Therefore, a mathematical model is needed to describe the movement of the air flow, but with the factors already describing at the level of electromagnetic processes. The elementary problem of describing the process of ionization of the surface of the outflow by air turns out to be a most difficult problem. Scientists are not able to build a model of how to combine dimensions or metrics in terms of quantitative numerical indicators, in geometry and in physics. Hence the inability to move to new levels of scientific and technical solutions.
            3. gridasov
              gridasov 13 October 2021 09: 13
              -1
              Actually, you are right. I'm a fool who tries to explain what you just need to see and understand
              .
              1. Rvlad
                Rvlad 13 October 2021 12: 45
                0
                No, you are not a fool, you are hopelessly ill. "the algorithm of their state from the laminar and convection level of the dynamics of the process to the level of the destructive jet of stone and metal" - contact a psychiatrist before it's too late. This is just a collection of words unrelated to each other, delusional thoughts
                1. gridasov
                  gridasov 13 October 2021 13: 05
                  0
                  So so be it. Wait and see!
    3. Timx
      Timx 9 October 2021 09: 26
      +2
      Bravo colleague, perhaps a fuller and more detailed description of the tangle of problems and contradictions in the creation of modern jet VTOL aircraft is simply not possible.
      The only thing, let me clarify a little. You are reasonably asking:
      The temperature at the outlet of the WFD nozzle is not 200 degrees Celsius, but 500-600, at afterburner it reaches 2000. And how does the author of the article imagine using afterburner modes?

      "author", if you can call it that - the person just copied all the nonsense from the presentation materials of AMNTK Soyuz for the current MAKS and the ARMY-2021 forum, most of the slides of which are presented in their corporate instagram .., supplementing it with their delusional '' inferences' '' type of engine efficiency over 200% or the concept of gas-dynamic control with the help of `` a jet of cold air taken from a lifting fan ''))) So what can he represent after that, and should he? (after all, the money has already been received and the pocket is completely do not pull))).
      PS
      It is more frustrating that so many people are seriously trying to analyze this whole stream of nonsense that has been pouring out of all the cracks for the last 5-7 years and especially actively for the last 2-3 years (starting with the election `` cartoons '' about the `` superweapon '' of 2018 from GDP).
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 October 2021 11: 49
      +3
      "The only modification of the F-35, which can take off vertically with a significantly reduced payload, resembles a" pig "due to its bloat" ///
      ---
      All three modifications of the F-35 have the same airframe. Unification of parts by 80%.
      The F-35B is optimized for short takeoffs from a flat deck. Which is what is required.
      Vertical take-off - for emergencies.
      The main thing for verticals is not takeoff. A vertical fit.
      Without aerofinishers. Simple, reliable, automatic. Any rookie pilot
      able to land the F-35B gently. For the reason that he does not touch the steering wheel at all
      and other controls during landing. Landing is automatic.


      ", the relative volume of the VTOL power plant reaches 55-60% of the volume of the airframe. For SOVP this value does not exceed 25-30%" ///
      ----
      This is not true. The internal weapons compartment for all three modifications of the F-35 is the same.
      The fan did not interfere with the placement of the weapon. And he did not inflate the glider, as in any
      case (even without a fan), the inner compartment requires width.
      1. Shopping Mall
        9 October 2021 16: 02
        -1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "The only modification of the F-35, which can take off vertically with a significantly reduced payload, resembles a" pig "due to its bloat" ///
        ---
        All three modifications of the F-35 have the same airframe. Unification of parts by 80%.
        ...

        ", the relative volume of the VTOL power plant reaches 55-60% of the volume of the airframe. For SOVP this value does not exceed 25-30%" ///
        ----
        This is not true. The internal weapons compartment for all three modifications of the F-35 is the same.
        The fan did not interfere with the placement of the weapon. And he did not inflate the glider, as in any
        case (even without a fan), the inner compartment requires width.


        That's right, here it is - the fan fee:
      2. Rvlad
        Rvlad 12 October 2021 14: 52
        0
        "This is not true ..." Well, let's figure it out. And then everything is somehow sour: slogans with foam at the mouth. And in the design bureau, stupid people are sitting, and here on the forum we will create any plane with one hand, easily. Vertical take-off is a very difficult regime (see books by V.F. , devoted his entire adult life to the introduction and adoption of VTOL aircraft (Yak-1, -36b - 38), books at least 141. It is not difficult to find on the Internet to eliminate illiteracy). So, the power plant of VTOL aircraft is distinguished by its large dimensions (see V.P.Suchkov, V.V. Rostopchin, Study of the efficiency of using a variable process engine with remote modules for multi-mode VTOL aircraft, 5, I can pile a bunch of AIAA reports on the same issue ) and this is due to the fact that there are restrictions on the specific thrust (in this case, we can talk about the flow rate from the nozzle), therefore, the thrust can be increased ONLY due to the air flow rate. The air speed at the inlet to the compresses is not higher than 1991 ... 100 m / s, so consider what "hole" should be at a flow rate of 150 kg / s. Two arithmetic operations. All VTOL aircraft are designed for a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 150 - 1,05. Not higher, otherwise you will then have to fly at deep throttle modes in flight. And at the time of operation of the power plant, the gas jets flowing from the system (if there are several sources of thrust) of the nozzles cause two effects: sucking and gushing. The suction one presses against the surface of the platform, and the fountain one acts on the rise. Unfortunately, despite the installation of shields, which should enhance the fountain effect by removing overflows, the suction force is higher. And depending on the layout of the airframe, the thrust losses, in the limit, reach 1,1-10% of the thrust level. So there was a desire to use forced modes on vertical takeoff (thrust increase factor 18-1,5). But we immediately ran into the problem with the surface of the site and the wild warming up of the air. Whether we like it or not, 2 ... 100 kg of air passes through the power plant per second. And this is about 200 cubic meters. So just count it: we enter with a temperature of 200 degrees Celsius, and we leave with a temperature of 20 (without afterburner), and all 600 on afterburner. And then the problems followed a succession ... All these works were in the USA, and in the USSR and in England and somehow they could not deceive physics. The airplane's airframe (its volume) cannot be used 2%: there are difficulties with balancing, you cannot fill in fuel everywhere: how to take it from there later, fuel tanks should be kept closer to the center of mass, etc. And there is a power plant. An increase in air consumption inevitably leads to an increase in the volume of the power plant. Look at the Yak-000, look at the agony in which the Harrier was born (I had to make a wing with a supercritical profile because it was impossible to place fuel in it in other places. And the first series of the aircraft had a maximum flight speed of as much as 100 km / h) .. This is wrong for you ... You have no knowledge. This is right
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 12 October 2021 15: 06
          +2
          "Look at the Yak-38, look at the agony in which Harrier was born" ///
          ---
          Correctly good
          It was on their throes that the F-35B was born.
          In which a young inexperienced pilot can take off and land after a basic course and a simulator.

          The most unpleasant takeoffs and landings for a pilot are on an ordinary F-35C.
          Here and a blow when detaching from the catapult,
          and blow when hooking with an aerofinisher.

          And the F-35B vertical does not have these torments.
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 12 October 2021 19: 05
            0
            Yes, you are not talking about those torments all the time. All the time some kind of fantasies. If everything were so simple, then they would have stopped building SOVP long ago, and everyone would instantly start building only VTOL aircraft. And pilots would stop teaching, since everything is so simple. But somehow everything is different, is not it?
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 19 October 2021 11: 19
              0
              Why do you think so? the main reason why there are so few VTOL aircraft is
              ) or lack of hyper-funding for highly competitive multi-vector development, as was the case in the past with helicopters and airplanes
              ) either the absence and / or ineffectiveness of tools for monetizing developments in this area.
              The first is needed for top-down development, the second for bottom-up development. The same outcome follows from both options.
        2. gridasov
          gridasov 13 October 2021 08: 56
          0
          You speak correctly
          But air and water can be compressed in such a way as not to accumulate, but immediately after the compression phase to use its detonation explosive parameters. Moreover . Constructors cannot or do not want to completely use methods to increase the performance of flow through closed loops.
        3. gridasov
          gridasov 13 October 2021 09: 00
          -1
          In my opinion you are hysterical! The inability to solve an elementary engineering problem is amazing. This really needs psychiatrists.
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 15 October 2021 10: 10
            +1
            Well, there is no hysteria. Do you even understand WHAT you are saying? "But air and water can be compressed so as not to accumulate, but immediately after the compression phase to use its detonation explosive parameters" - how is that? What is meant by "explosive detonation parameters"? Due to its structure, the liquid is practically NOT COMPRESSIBLE !!! Gases are compressible and such science as THERMODYNAMICS is devoted to this !!! Do you know this? Before you, no one has yet been able to identify some "explosive detonation parameters of water or air." Share. They will immediately give you the Nobel Prize and write it down for the saints of the church. "Constructors cannot or do not want to completely use methods to increase flow performance through closed loops" - and how is that? How will you increase the flow rate (and what is this? What do you mean by that ?, I assume that this is the mass flow rate of a liquid or gas per second), for example, through the walls of a closed gas cylinder? And what methods of this very increase do you know? DO YOU REPORT YOURSELF that you are delusional? Your presentation of thoughts is confused ... You are monstrously illiterate ... I beg you, do not write anything else: I have already made an article out of your pearls and pearls of the author of this article, I will finalize it and publish it in one of the journals on psychiatry of the post-capitalist society. For this, many thanks to you and the author. Amused
            1. gridasov
              gridasov 15 October 2021 18: 00
              0
              From the fact that you do not understand the elementary it is useless to show the psycho. Both liquid and hydrocarbons in the combustion chamber explode during initiating processes. And the fact that it’s funny to say you don’t know how to squeeze water doesn’t do honor
              Diesel fuel explodes. And how to blow up water or air with moisture, you really need to understand the depth of the process. Well, ask Magomet Sagov how to increase the throughput of the pipe. I made it much easier. And there is no need to build entire complexes for pumping gas or oil. In general, it is just right for me to be nervous.
    5. Shopping Mall
      9 October 2021 12: 24
      -3
      Quote: RVlad
      The desire to reduce the costs associated with the presence of aerodromes, runways, etc. etc. is always there. Hence the suffering about VTOL aircraft. It would seem that everything is clear there. But no. From time to time there are such, not quite qualified, articles. So, it has long been proven that VTOL aircraft will ALWAYS be worse than a conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. Why? Therefore:


      In some ways worse, the question is, how much. And there is an unequivocal answer to this question - a comparison of the aircraft of the F-35 line. In fact, now this is the range, which the F-35B has less than the F-35A by 20%, and the mass of weapons is 17% less, which is not critical at all when it is placed in the internal compartments. And on the example of the development of VTOL aircraft, it is clearly seen that the higher the specific power of the turbojet engine, the smaller the difference in the performance characteristics and flight characteristics of the VTOL aircraft and the aircraft of a conventional takeoff and landing.

      Quote: RVlad
      - the relative volume of the VTOL power plant reaches 55-60% of the airframe volume. For SOVP, this value does not exceed 25-30%. This is despite the fact that the internal space of the airframe available for placement of equipment and devices is no more than 80% of the volume enclosed inside the washed surface of the airframe. There is nowhere to fill the fuel;


      As much as twice! Which models did you compare it for? Are there any data on the F-35A / B?

      Quote: RVlad
      - the axial moments of inertia of the VTOL aircraft due to the mass separation (the thrust has to be pulled along the glider, otherwise it will not be balanced when moving along the transitional sections of the trajectory) approximately 1,5 - 2 times higher than that of the VTOL aircraft. Hence the lethargy when maneuvering;


      Are you talking about Harier? In the same F-35B after takeoff, there will be no fundamental difference. And all this nonsense with super-maneuverability is already generally useless after the appearance of helmet guidance systems, incl. looking "through the cockpit", as in the same F-35, and highly maneuverable V-V and Z-V missiles with a gas-dynamic control belt and a seeker with a wide field of view. And the super-maneuverability of the onboard self-defense systems will be buried - the ships do not try to "dodge" the anti-ship missiles, they shoot them down, it will be the same with the planes.

      Quote: RVlad
      - huge problems with aerothermogasdynamic impact on the underlying surface of the site from which takeoff is carried out or on which landing is carried out. Concrete explodes (if you take off with the afterburner, this is a known problem), gas outlet grids do not save (even in the 80s of the last century, they realized this, including during the development of the Yak-141),


      For this, a fan is needed, which drives cold air, and the selection of cold air from the second circuit.

      Quote: RVlad
      at a high outside temperature (above 25 degrees Celsius, difficulties already arise) you cannot take off with a normal payload, and if for some reason you have worked in takeoff mode or close to it for more than 20-30 seconds and have not taken off from the platform, you can safely go drink beer: you can't take off. Air within a radius of 150-200 m will be heated to a temperature of 45-60 degrees. And until the wind blows it away and the site cools down, it is pointless to do anything (I know from my own experience).


      Experience of what? Did you fly the F-35B, or at least the Yak-141? Yak-38 does not count. And the vertical take-off for VTOL aircraft is not the main one, but the auxiliary one, but the main one with a short (100-150 meters) and ultra-short (10-20 meters) takeoff run. And preferably with a springboard. And this is no longer a platform, but a short runway.

      Quote: RVlad
      The temperature at the outlet of the WFD nozzle is not 200 degrees Celsius, but 500-600, at afterburner it reaches 2000. And how does the author of the article imagine using afterburner modes?


      This is what the developers say. 150-200 degrees - air extraction from the secondary circuit, and the hot jet of the primary circuit, as in the case of "classic" aircraft, will not be directed into the ground.

      Quote: RVlad
      - a decrease in the temperature of the outflowing gases is possible by increasing the total air flow through the power plant. And this will simply inflate the plane to unimaginable proportions with subsequent problems (there are also sucking (pressing to the platform) forces, and they can reach up to 15% of the thrust force. 5% of traction).


      Will not inflate. Those same USA are developing three-circuit engines and do not cry because they "get fat".

      Quote: RVlad
      The only modification of the F-35, which can take off vertically with a significantly reduced payload, resembles a "pig" due to its bloat.


      What is wrong with my eyes? Something I do not see the difference.

      No, everything is fine:


      Quote: RVlad
      And this aircraft is only for the Marine Corps, for air support near (under the nose) of an aircraft carrier.


      And on a British aircraft carrier. And also from Japan and Italy. And who has the F-35C besides the United States?

      Quote: RVlad
      A large number of articles have been written on this topic, both in the Russian Federation and abroad. I would recommend to the author, before writing such articles and misleading readers to work through the scientific literature and then draw some conclusions and conclusions. And then below the people got excited, they started talking about pride ... but what about physics? She doesn't give a damn about pride ...


      Don't worry, I read and consulted with experts on this matter.
      1. Lozovik
        Lozovik 10 October 2021 10: 36
        0
        Quote: AVM
        In fact, now this is the range, which the F-35B has less than the F-35A by 20%, and the mass of weapons is 17% less, which is not critical at all when it is placed in the internal compartments.

        Just critical - the F-35B takes 1000Ib bombs into the cargo compartments, while the F-35A 2000Ib.

        Quote: AVM
        And on the example of the development of VTOL aircraft, it is clearly seen that the higher the specific power of the turbojet engine, the smaller the difference in the performance characteristics and flight characteristics of VTOL aircraft and the aircraft of conventional takeoff and landing.

        The example of the F-35 shows that even with essentially unified hulls, VTOL aircraft will have much lower performance. If you compare the experienced Yak-141 with the serial 9-12 (between which they are 10 years old), the gap will be more noticeable.

        Quote: AVM
        What is wrong with my eyes? Something I do not see the difference.

        Well, take another look at the rear compartment:



        1. Shopping Mall
          12 October 2021 20: 51
          +1
          Quote: Lozovik
          Quote: AVM
          In fact, now this is the range, which the F-35B has less than the F-35A by 20%, and the mass of weapons is 17% less, which is not critical at all when it is placed in the internal compartments.

          Just critical - the F-35B takes 1000Ib bombs into the cargo compartments, while the F-35A 2000Ib.


          More precisely 2500 lb (1100 kg) for the F-35A and 1500 lb for the F-35B (680 kg). Most likely due to local weakening of the airframe. But how critical is it?

          Look at the main characteristics of the weapons used:
          AIM-120 - 152 kg
          SPEAR 3 - 100 kg
          GBU-53 - 93 kg
          GBU-39 - 129 kg
          AGM-154 JSOW - 483-497 kg
          Paveway - 113,4-227-454-907 kg
          GBU-31 - 268-459-924-959 kg

          The F-35B can use most of it. I’m not saying that limitations are good, but it’s not that critical. In the end, external suspensions can also be used to use aerial bombs weighing a ton.

          Quote: Lozovik
          Quote: AVM
          And on the example of the development of VTOL aircraft, it is clearly seen that the higher the specific power of the turbojet engine, the smaller the difference in the performance characteristics and flight characteristics of VTOL aircraft and the aircraft of conventional takeoff and landing.

          The example of the F-35 shows that even with essentially unified hulls, VTOL aircraft will have much lower performance.


          PMSM are not that big. Do not forget, I never said that VTOL aircraft will replace the "horizontal". I believe that they are underestimated, and that with each successive generation the difference between the "classic" and VTOL aircraft decreases. Here is the main takeaway.

          Quote: Lozovik
          If you compare the experienced Yak-141 with the serial 9-12 (between which it is 10 years old), the gap will be more noticeable.


          I would be grateful for a link to the difference in their performance characteristics and performance characteristics.

          Quote: Lozovik
          Quote: AVM
          What is wrong with my eyes? Something I do not see the difference.

          Well, take another look at the rear compartment:





          So what? A slight thickening - does not pull on the "hog" in any way. It is enough to look at the first and last modifications of the F-16 to understand what a "hog" is. And our MiG-29 SMT is considerably thicker than its progenitor. And without any fan.




          1. Lozovik
            Lozovik 24 October 2021 23: 09
            0
            Quote: AVM
            The F-35B can use most of it. I’m not saying that limitations are good, but it’s not that critical. In the end, external suspensions can also be used to use aerial bombs weighing a ton.

            So is there a difference?

            Quote: AVM
            I would be grateful for a link to the difference in their performance characteristics and performance characteristics.

            Read RLE hi The Yak has no OPRNK, the range is shorter, the maneuverability is worse, the range of altitudes and flight speeds is less, the weapons are weaker.

            Quote: AVM
            So what?

            The smartest answer! laughing
      2. Rvlad
        Rvlad 12 October 2021 15: 25
        -1
        Well, let's go in order. You do not know with whom you are communicating. It may be a student, or it may be more serious. If you communicated with students, then it is forgivable. But if with the "specialists" it is already a disaster. Although it is now all over the world: some whistlers with aplomb.
        1. "Something worse, the question is, how much" - VTOL aircraft will always be worse, under any conditions. This is a fact proven both by science and practice. In the 90th year, a doctoral dissertation was defended (scientific consultant V.F. Pavlenko), in which, among other things, it was proved that the land use of VTOL aircraft is pointless in principle (if I need to tell you why), reducing costs in the construction of an aircraft carrier of the type Kiev (without a ramp) under the VTOL aircraft is more than covered by the subsequent costs of operating VTOL aircraft and the cost of increasing the VTOL fleet, due to the inferiority of their flight characteristics. And there are no special advantages of VTOL aircraft identified. LTH is not a list of individual values ​​of indicators, but something more. In the history of military aviation, only one (ONE) case of a VTOL aircraft (Harrier) landing on a dry cargo ship in the fog during the Falklands conflict was recorded. This is the only case where vertical take-off and landing have been realized. But the economy turned out to be like that, it was cheaper to lose this plane ... You need to read not advertising literature, but serious scientific and technical work. And then between the lines, too, not everyone writes, especially now.
        2. "As much as twice! Which models did you compare this for?" - there is no need to compare with anything, the formulas are very simple. Physicists have not yet been able to deceive anyone (see V.P.Suchkov, V.V. Rostopchin, Study of the efficiency of using a variable process engine with remote modules for multi-mode VTOL aircraft, 1991).
        3. "Experience of what? F-35B flew, or at least Yak-141? Yak-38 does not count" - I had Yak-38 on military trials)))) Why not? Are the laws of physics on the F-35B or Yak-141 different?
        4. "This is what a fan is for" - the fan is a source of thrust, not for supplying cold air. I gave you the link above. All options are considered there. You are so illiterate that, unfortunately, you do not understand what you are talking about ..
        5. "Are you talking about Harier? In the same F-35B, after takeoff, there will be no fundamental difference. And all this super-maneuverability nonsense is already generally useless after the appearance of helmet guidance systems, including those looking" through the cockpit ", as in the same F-35, and highly maneuverable V-V and Z-V missiles with a gas-dynamic control belt and a seeker with a wide field of view. will be the same. " - here I don't even have any comments: you don't understand what you are saying. I am very interested in where you were taught, what kind of education you have ... it's some kind of shame
        6. "Don't worry, I read and consulted with experts on this" - I suspect that the level of these specialists is not higher than yours ... This is some kind of disaster.
        1. Shopping Mall
          12 October 2021 21: 15
          0
          Quote: RVlad
          Well, let's go in order.


          Let's.

          Quote: RVlad
          You do not know with whom you are communicating. It may be a student, or it may be more serious. If you communicated with students, then it is forgivable. But if with the "specialists" it is already a disaster. Although it is now all over the world: some whistlers with aplomb.


          Yes, of course, the grass was greener ... Now alone ...

          Quote: RVlad
          1. "Something worse, the question is, how much" - VTOL aircraft will always be worse, under any conditions. This is a fact proven both by science and practice.


          Nobody argues with this, but this difference decreases with each generation.

          Quote: RVlad
          In the 90th year, a doctoral dissertation was defended (scientific consultant V.F. Pavlenko), in which, among other things, it was proved that the land use of VTOL aircraft is pointless in principle (if I need to tell you why), reducing costs in the construction of an aircraft carrier of the type Kiev (without a ramp) under the VTOL aircraft is more than covered by the subsequent costs of operating VTOL aircraft and the cost of increasing the VTOL fleet, due to the inferiority of their flight characteristics. And there are no special advantages of VTOL aircraft identified.


          I would love to read it, but I doubt that her conclusions are relevant now.

          Quote: RVlad
          LTH is not a list of individual values ​​of indicators, but something more. In the history of military aviation, only one (ONE) case of a VTOL aircraft (Harrier) landing on a dry cargo ship in the fog during the Falklands conflict was recorded. This is the only case where vertical take-off and landing have been realized. But the economy turned out to be like that, it was cheaper to lose this plane ... You need to read not advertising literature, but serious scientific and technical work. And then between the lines, too, not everyone writes, especially now.


          It. Ancient. VTOL aircraft. Like mammoth shit. Weak engine. Lack of automation. But even those VTOL aircraft helped Britain to squeeze the Falklands. Now the same F-35B will cut the air forces of 90% of the countries of the world.

          Quote: RVlad
          2. "As much as twice! Which models did you compare this for?" - there is no need to compare with anything, the formulas are very simple. Physicists have not yet been able to deceive anyone (see V.P.Suchkov, V.V. Rostopchin, Study of the efficiency of using a variable process engine with remote modules for multi-mode VTOL aircraft, 1991).


          It is not online, and leave physics alone. I remember that they proved to me 17 years ago that digital cameras will never replace film cameras. They also referred to physics and chemistry ...

          Quote: RVlad
          3. "Experience of what? F-35B flew, or at least Yak-141? Yak-38 does not count" - I had Yak-38 on military trials)))) Why not? Are the laws of physics on the F-35B or Yak-141 different?


          What does the laws of physics have to do with it? An electric car 50 years ago could not even theoretically compete with cars with an internal combustion engine, but now it is happening before our eyes.

          A space rocket 20 years ago could not land vertically and fly 20 times, but now it is the mainstream of space technology development.

          Technology maturity issue. It is impossible to stupidly extrapolate the problems of the Yak-38 to the prospects of new generations of aircraft.

          Quote: RVlad
          4. "This is what a fan is for" - the fan is a source of thrust, not for supplying cold air. I gave you the link above. All options are considered there. You are so illiterate that, unfortunately, you do not understand what you are talking about ..


          Look at your literacy, at least at the ability to read carefully. And in the Yak-38, and in Harier, and in the Yak-141, all vertical thrust was created by jet engines, thrust from the primary circuit. From the temperature of the jet stream and "the concrete exploded." The F-35B has hot air only in the back, the air from the fan is cold (I think it partially "blurs" the impact from the engine as well), + it takes off with a short mileage, and not vertically - the impact of the hot jet is "smeared" over 120 meters of the runway.
          In promising VTOL aircraft all vertical thrust can be "cold" - from the fan and from the second circuit of the turbojet engine.

          Quote: RVlad
          5. "Are you talking about Harier? In the same F-35B, after takeoff, there will be no fundamental difference. And all this super-maneuverability nonsense is already generally useless after the appearance of helmet guidance systems, including those looking" through the cockpit ", as in the same F-35, and highly maneuverable V-V and Z-V missiles with a gas-dynamic control belt and a seeker with a wide field of view. will be the same. " - here I don't even have any comments: you don't understand what you are saying. I am very interested in where you were taught, what kind of education you have ... it's some kind of shame
          6. "Don't worry, I read and consulted with experts on this" - I suspect that the level of these specialists is not higher than yours ... This is some kind of disaster.


          ... this is some kind of shame
          ... This is some kind of disaster

          Apparently, you cannot say anything intelligible on this issue.
        2. gridasov
          gridasov 15 October 2021 18: 44
          0
          Here I read your comments and really admire. But there is a problem of lack of flexibility in the mind. You are an overflowing cup and your self-confidence becomes ambivalent. I don't even bother trying to understand you, everything has been known for a long time. Just enter a few key aspects into the analysis and see how the knowledge system expands.
      3. Rvlad
        Rvlad 12 October 2021 19: 12
        0
        "what is the higher the specific power of the turbojet engine" - Author, and what is the specific power of the turbojet engine? And what is the difference between a turbojet engine and a power plant, for example, a Harrier? Well, let the F-35B, if you like it so much? I would very much like to hear the answer ...
        1. Shopping Mall
          12 October 2021 21: 17
          -1
          Quote: RVlad
          "what is the higher the specific power of the turbojet engine" - Author, and what is the specific power of the turbojet engine? And what is the difference between a turbojet engine and a power plant, for example, a Harrier? Well, let the F-35B, if you like it so much? I would very much like to hear the answer ...


          Power density is the ratio of thrust to engine mass.
          TRD - turbojet engine. There is also a turbojet engine in Harier.
          1. Rvlad
            Rvlad 13 October 2021 00: 00
            0
            If you can write to me in a personal, I will clearly and intelligibly explain to you. And how to write articles too ... If you need it. Otherwise, in your answers, you not only demonstrated your ignorance, but consolidated this impression completely: "Specific power is the ratio of thrust to mass" - only for this one pearl you should be deprived of the right to go to the computer and write something ...
  • qQQQ
    qQQQ 8 October 2021 08: 58
    0
    Or maybe all the same make a normal aircraft carrier and equip it with conventional aircraft? In aggregate, it will come out cheaper and several times more efficient. It will be possible to place both refueling aircraft and AWACS, anyway, without them, the VTOL will shamelessly lose to a normal aircraft, and this requires an aircraft carrier, and if there is an aircraft carrier, then why fence a garden with VTOL aircraft?
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 8 October 2021 22: 40
      +1
      Quote: qqqq
      Or maybe all the same make a normal aircraft carrier and equip it with conventional aircraft?

      The States have everything you listed. But they did VTOL.
      And their UDCs are being converted for basing the F-35B.
      Hypersonic weapons will change the battlefield a lot soon. hi
      1. qQQQ
        qQQQ 9 October 2021 09: 11
        +1
        Quote: Alex777
        The States have everything you listed. But they did VTOL.

        The States have a printing press, so they can afford everything, even create a F117 flying iron, and then throw it out, etc. And who said that they do everything without mistakes? Once again, a VTOL aircraft itself is useless, it needs a tanker, an AWACS aircraft, and this is a normal aircraft carrier, and if there is one, then why then a VTOL aircraft? And yes, the F35 itself is not a fountain, so the VTOL variant is unlikely to make it much worse than it is.
    2. Shopping Mall
      9 October 2021 12: 25
      0
      Quote: qqqq
      Or maybe all the same make a normal aircraft carrier and equip it with conventional aircraft? In aggregate, it will come out cheaper and several times more efficient.


      Will not work

      Quote: qqqq
      It will be possible to place both refueling aircraft and AWACS, anyway, without them, the VTOL will shamelessly lose to a normal aircraft, and this requires an aircraft carrier, and if there is an aircraft carrier, then why fence a garden with VTOL aircraft?


      We will consider this issue later.
      1. qQQQ
        qQQQ 9 October 2021 20: 16
        0
        Quote: AVM
        Will not work

        In terms of costs, I agree, at times this is too much, let's say that it is comparable, but in terms of efficiency, the aircraft carrier will definitely be many times steeper.
  • vch62388
    vch62388 8 October 2021 08: 59
    +1
    A number of components for aircraft engine building with military acceptance are produced by only a couple of factories in Russia, one of which is located right in the center of a million-plus city (just to bankrupt, close and build a multi-storey residential complex with a shopping center, the land is very tempting). So far, it keeps, but those who wish have appetites ...
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 8 October 2021 09: 32
      +1
      They will say: "We will build a new plant, all of us advanced, with new equipment" in a new location. And workers, engineers and others. we will take out from the old one. Will they go? Here are families, schools, clinics, etc. The most unpleasant thing is the loss of competencies. Consider starting from scratch.
  • hostel
    hostel 8 October 2021 09: 04
    +3
    And again this plane will be attached for the needs of the fleet. Why you need to spend money on incomprehensible tasks. Operation of VTOL aircraft is possible as an attack aircraft, but not as an air superiority fighter. For the Americans, the Harriers served in the ILC at the UDC. Thus, it is a niche aircraft. If we are to make a ship's plane, then on the basis of the MIG-35. And in this case, we will have a universal aircraft capable of conducting both air combat and assault on targets on the ground. All you need is a catapult. Instead of following the path already drawn, we invent our own path.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 October 2021 10: 29
      +2
      Quote: alberigo
      Thus, it is a niche aircraft.

      This is all controversial, it all depends on "who thinks what and how", if you count on an aircraft in a similar mass-size of those that are in service with the Russian Federation, then we have about 17 types of aircraft with a total number of 1500 + pcs, even if take only airborne front-line attack aircraft, then there are 300 + pieces, so there is quite a pool of orders for VTOL aircraft in the Russian Federation, the only question is about the quality of the implementation of a specific project, and the correct organization of the development process, and first of all, it is the latter that is important, and it is in the context of innovations in this areas, because the existing solutions clearly do not meet the needs of the military.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. hostel
        hostel 8 October 2021 23: 45
        -2
        Do you propose to introduce VTOL aircraft on land? But this is nonsense.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 October 2021 01: 11
          -1
          I just voiced the idea that it is wrong to evaluate the "type of technology" according to the "design of technology" and / or "model of technology", and even more so it is wrong to deduce from unsuccessful projects / samples of technology certain statements about the need / uselessness of a type of technology in general.

          In general, all these holivaro-srachiks basically have a substitution of causes, effects and concepts, both among themselves and in relation to what they relate to. For example, a typical example of such a substitution is to transfer negatives (problems / shortcomings / jambs) from a model of equipment, let's say "LA Harier" to a project of equipment, let's say "AC with SU like a Harier", or immediately to the type of equipment "VTOL". Well, that is, the authors use a demagogy technique called "thesis substitution" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0 % B0_% D1% 82% D0% B5% D0% B7% D0% B8% D1% 81% D0% B0
          1. hostel
            hostel 12 October 2021 16: 02
            0
            And what is the difference between an aircraft of the Harier type and an aircraft with a control system of the Harier type.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 8 October 2021 09: 20
    +2
    Interestingly the girls are dancing! 4 pieces in a row! The author in all his proletarian ... eloquence refers to the Yak-141, then to the F-35B ... And referring to the F-35B, he convinces us to "build" a VTOL aircraft with a lifting fan! But the fact is that the Yakovlevites before the Americans came to the idea that the Yak-141 scheme was futile in the future and began designing the Yak-201 VTOL aircraft with a lifting fan! It is believed that when creating the F-35B, the Americans used the documentation for the Yak-141 purchased from the Yakovlev Design Bureau ....! I have long been convinced that in addition to the documentation for the Yak-141, the Americans got acquainted with many promising developments of the Yakovlev Design Bureau; incl. and at the design stage! That's where the lift fan comes from on the F-35B!
    1. Avior
      Avior 8 October 2021 19: 36
      0
      Lockheed Martin received a patent for the F-35 scheme back in 1990, long before the Yak-201 and before communicating with the Yakovlev Design Bureau
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 9 October 2021 10: 26
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        Lockheed Martin received a patent for the F-35 scheme back in 1990, long before the Yak-201 and before communicating with KB Yakovlev

        Why are you gutarite ?! Tilka for which scheme is the F-35 patent? Immediately on 3 "categories" A, B, C? Perhaps you have beguiled a patent with a driver's license? And in the course you, that the lifting fan (PV) in the AVVP tried to apply in the first half of the last century?

        We "worked" with PV also in the second half of the 20th century ... For example, the scheme of AVVP somewhere in the 60-70s ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 October 2021 12: 23
          +1
          ... Tilka which scheme is the F-35 patent?

          Patent for the scheme according to which the VTOL F-35V was later built
  • KCA
    KCA 8 October 2021 09: 31
    +5
    40MW output? Aren't you fucked up? I looked, at the AN-225 six engines give out 111000hp, 1hp is equal to 0,74KW, the power of 6 engines is 82MW, and here such a smart one gives out 40MW with an additional load, but how much more for the main one?
  • Operator
    Operator 8 October 2021 10: 30
    -1
    VTOL aircraft will not take off - it has already been surpassed by aircraft of a normal scheme with an engine thrust in takeoff mode exceeding the weight of the aircraft (Su-57), which reduces the take-off mileage to 200-300 meters in combination with the possibility of using field airfields with a runway covering with perforated metal shields ( complete analogy with the basing of aircraft in WWII). And no impact of the high-temperature jet of the turbojet engine on the runway surface.
    1. alstr
      alstr 8 October 2021 11: 18
      +2
      And if we consider that even a simple field airfield takes some time to create and that with a long runway, that with a short one.
      And you just won't be able to fly to the neighboring clearing. There are serious ground restrictions.
      but even if it works out, then besides the runway itself, you still need a lot of everything, from fuel to just people.
      Therefore, the flight can be carried out only to a PREVIOUSLY prepared site. Therefore, there is little difference between building a field site for a conventional aircraft and for a VTOL aircraft. It is offset by the complexity of VTOL service.
      From here on land, VTOL aircraft is NOT NEEDED.

      VTOL aircraft are needed exclusively for the Navy. There - yes. This allows for the time being to have planes where the enemy does not have them - i.e. in the sea. And far enough from the coast. And it should also be taken into account that the main task of such VTOL aircraft is the air defense of ships and reconnaissance. Impact functions are better performed by CD and RCC.

      But that's all for now.
      UAVs are marching widely and reconnaissance tasks can already be solved from almost any ship. And the day is not far off when UAVs will be able to perform the functions of air defense fighters.
      And UAVs in the future will replace the need to have VTOL aircraft.
      1. Operator
        Operator 8 October 2021 18: 35
        0
        For jet aircraft with a specific engine thrust of less than a unit of field airfields with the laying of perforated metal shields, they do not build from the word at all, because the length of the runway is over 1 km.

        Did I talk about the second deployment of a field airfield? In WWII, field airfields with the entire repair, refueling and anti-aircraft security infrastructure with a 300-meter runway from slabs were erected in a few days.
  • andreykolesov123
    andreykolesov123 8 October 2021 10: 51
    -6
    I don’t understand why you should invest resources in engines. they are so excellent. you have a problem with avionics and radio signature, these are the areas that need to be developed.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 8 October 2021 10: 58
    +3
    Great article and thanks to the author!
    After reading, especially about 40 MW on the shaft, the thought went right away, towards the onboard laser installation of 0,5 MW. in the output pulse, through the fiber-optic hub and goodbye to the GOS SAM, where optics are used, with infrared and photocontrast matrices, the sunset is close ... !!!
    Gas-dynamic (jet) control, especially on a "cold stream", is much more effective than blocking a "forest" with control of the boundary layer, and again, the planes give so little stealth, but here a total reduction of it ...
    And rather, everything will "grow" in the area of ​​VTOL aircraft, namely around a high-speed multi-mode impeller driven by a gas turbine unit (it is also a fan, possibly a lift-sustainer, and the afterburner will provide supersonic sound if necessary ... so that the onboard fuel is not in vain burn at subsonic sound, which is already a bit there ...) and fast "servos" for controlling the gas-dynamic matrices of nozzle modules in the carrier body, for momentary control in flight and in different vertical modes ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 October 2021 11: 57
      +4
      "the thought went immediately, towards the onboard laser installation of 0,5 MW. in the output pulse, through the fiber-optic hub" ////
      ----
      This is already being done.
      The laser on the F-35A will be replaced by the fan. Supercapacitors are also there.
      And the laser is more powerful than you thought.
      It will replace the cannon in close combat and when attacking helicopters, UAVs, etc.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 10 October 2021 05: 40
        0
        Supercapacitors are also there.
        HM. the Pentagon in the last decade, wanted to develop ultracapacitors, on a solid dielectric !?
        And the laser is more powerful than you thought.

        More than 500 kW., In impulse, or continuously !? Something helluva lot, before ... the same one, for the mass-dimensions of the F-35! .. recourse Yes, and the GTU will pull it and where to put it in, if the volume of the fan is already occupied by the laser itself ..., an additional turbine generator, only if not on the external suspension and a separate module with onboard fuel supply !?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 October 2021 09: 12
          +3
          70-100 kW is considered sufficient for burning thin metal from 2-4 km
          Burn the cockpit cap, some vulnerable part ...
          1. Intruder
            Intruder 10 October 2021 09: 26
            -1
            some vulnerable part ..
            Which still needs to be "irradiated" with sufficient energy in a pulse, on the surface of a flying and maneuvering air target and the cockpit cap, now it is not such a simple design, especially in the latest "coverless" versions, there is an outer layer of sputtering and, in general, composite multilayer materials, and these are not homogeneous metal alloys!
            Maybe not enough, 70-100 kW !? Precisely, in the atmosphere ... for a quick target!
            1. Shopping Mall
              10 October 2021 14: 26
              0
              Quote: Intruder
              some vulnerable part ..
              Which still needs to be "irradiated" with sufficient energy in a pulse, on the surface of a flying and maneuvering air target and the cockpit cap, now it is not such a simple design, especially in the latest "coverless" versions, there is an outer layer of sputtering and, in general, composite multilayer materials, and these are not homogeneous metal alloys!
              Maybe not enough, 70-100 kW !? Precisely, in the atmosphere ... for a quick target!


              Here I wrote about the development of laser weapons in the Air Force:
              Laser weapons: prospects in the air force. Part of 2
              https://topwar.ru/155386-lazernoe-oruzhie-perspektivy-v-voenno-vozdushnyh-silah-chast-2.html

              Laser weapons on combat aircraft. Is it possible to resist it?
              https://topwar.ru/161262-lazernoe-oruzhie-na-boevyh-samoletah-mozhno-li-emu-protivostojat.html
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 10 October 2021 14: 46
                -1
                Here I wrote about the development of laser weapons in the Air Force
                I know, because I saved them in pdf in my collection of articles on VO, by the way, thanks for them, like this one and for her !!! hi
                1. Shopping Mall
                  10 October 2021 19: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Intruder
                  Here I wrote about the development of laser weapons in the Air Force
                  I know, because I saved them in pdf in my collection of articles on VO, by the way, thanks for them, like this one and for her !!! hi


                  Thank you for your feedback!
                  1. Intruder
                    Intruder 10 October 2021 20: 14
                    +1
                    Thank you for your feedback!
                    What I'm in for, I'm a simple consumer of content, "dumb and evil" as some people here think ... laughing But I keep good and excellent articles, as a keepsake ... here, I'm such a snicker, ... the State Department spy (other epithets are prohibited in VO) !!! wink
  • Igor Tikhomirov
    Igor Tikhomirov 8 October 2021 11: 01
    -3
    The Russian Air Force does not need a VTOL aircraft. Given the limited fleet of the Air Force and the large territory, airplanes with a relatively large combat radius are needed. This is impossible for VTOL aircraft by definition. It is better not to mention the aircraft carrier fleet at all.
    I think there is enough common sense not to seriously engage in this direction.
    1. DO
      DO 8 October 2021 13: 29
      +2
      What are advanced fighters for?
      After all, for a war with the "barmaley", serial models of military aircraft are enough.
      Consequently, it makes sense to develop innovative military aircraft, first of all, to ensure the readiness of the Russian Aerospace Forces for a non-nuclear conflict with NATO.
      And what actions of this adversary are XNUMX% predictable at the beginning of a conflict? Among other things, a massive missile attack on airfields. After such a strike, it will take time to restore the readiness of the Air Force, which the enemy will use to develop the initiative.
      And in this case, it is advisable to develop solutions that ensure the covert deployment of camouflaged mobile airfield complexes on highways. The requirements for the aircraft of these complexes, apparently, should include folding or quickly detachable wings (for hidden transportation), and a significantly shortened takeoff from highways, with full load. Whether or not a lift fan is needed for this is up to the experts. However, the increased requirements for engine thrust are obvious.
      PS
      In the mentioned case, there will be no time for complex unmanned delights. Considering also the need for increased thrust, two engines are preferable for a manned aircraft.
      1. DO
        DO 9 October 2021 12: 46
        -1
        PS-2
        Perhaps the easiest way to get a suitable fighter for hidden mobile airfields is to modify the MiG-35, and use solid-propellant take-off boosters.
        By the way, I remembered that somewhere I saw an old Soviet video, in which, it seems, a MiG-21 with gunpowder boosters takes off from a trailer of some large wagon, on which a starting rail is installed. Although at the same time he was fully loaded with ammunition, I do not remember. It's probably still easier to take off from the road.
        1. DO
          DO 10 October 2021 01: 23
          0
          PS-3
          Even if a decision is made at the very top to develop an aircraft like the F-35B and adequate resources are allocated, this work will take years.
          Therefore, perhaps it is worth solving the systemic task of creating a hidden mobile airfield complex faster, and in parts?
          For example, at the first stage, solve the issue of hidden transportation. And it includes, most likely, disassembly and quick assembly of the aircraft. Moreover, there can be two options, for a railway carriage and for a truck. It could be, possibly, Su and MiG planes, respectively.
          A short take-off at the first stage can be solved in a naval manner, as in Kuza - by developing a quickly assembled, and maybe limitedly mobile springboard.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 October 2021 20: 52
      +2
      Quote: Igor Tikhomirov
      The Russian Air Force does not need a VTOL aircraft.

      Quote: Igor Tikhomirov
      Given the limited fleet of the Air Force and the large territory, airplanes with a relatively large combat radius are needed.

      Well, that is, you propose to continue to produce and maintain 17 types of aircraft with a total number of 1500 pieces and at the same time "at the right time in the right place" have a maximum of 10-50 cars?
      On the other hand, it is possible to design "1/2 types of aircraft-like aircraft with VVPZ" and build them in large quantities, while gaining a benefit not only in cost, maintenance and interchangeability, but also in tactics and strategy of application having received "at the right time at the right place "hundreds \ thousands of aircraft.
      In general, the point is not in the mythical "unnecessary for the Russian Federation", but in the TSV of a specific aircraft project, as well as in the effectiveness of the organization. The process of developing innovations in this area.
  • Eug
    Eug 8 October 2021 13: 11
    +2
    The author is aware of the range in which the turbojet engine speed changes? What is the generator on the shaft? It turns out that in vain for power supply they invented and used GPs with a constant frequency drive ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 October 2021 11: 59
      +3
      This issue has been resolved. And for electric cars and for any
      another purpose.
    2. Shopping Mall
      9 October 2021 12: 30
      0
      Quote: Eug
      The author is aware of the range in which the turbojet engine speed changes? What is the generator on the shaft? It turns out that in vain for power supply they invented and used GPs with a constant frequency drive ...


      This is not my "notion". The United States plans to put laser weapons on the F-35B for testing, and the generator there is just powered by the turbojet engine (there will be no vertical takeoff). How will the problem of changing the speed be solved? I don’t know, maybe some kind of gearbox, such as a variator, or there will be a rpm range when the generator will be efficient, i.e. for it to work, the engine will need to be kept in a certain power range.
      1. Eug
        Eug 9 October 2021 19: 50
        +1
        It has long been invented - the shaft is rotated by the Constant Frequency Drive, and the generator rotates from this drive - but not directly the generator on the shaft.
  • Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 8 October 2021 14: 53
    +1
    On Friday, we need to discuss rocket takeoff and landing of planes! Elon Musk will not let you lie that these are technologies of the future :)
    1. AC130 Ganship
      AC130 Ganship 8 October 2021 16: 28
      +2
      20 years ago, sending one tourist to the ISS cost $ 20M. Now it should be somewhere around 30-40. I wonder who paid for the flight of 3 people (the commander, in fact, is the pilot)? Well, Kostik Ernst will also unfasten a little bread and butter for himself from this show ...
  • Marius
    Marius 8 October 2021 16: 15
    +1
    I'll just leave a link to the Soyuz AMNTK Instagram - https://instagram.com/soyuz_amntk?utm_medium=copy_link
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 8 October 2021 16: 24
    0
    In the top picture - this is how the Mig31 is presented in the American film, where the legendary Clint Eastwood plays the Russian pilot.
    Americans in those years did not yet know that the MiG31 was a deep modernization of the MiG25
    1. Shopping Mall
      9 October 2021 12: 33
      0
      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      In the top picture - this is how the Mig31 is presented in the American film, where the legendary Clint Eastwood plays the Russian pilot.
      Americans in those years did not yet know that the MiG31 was a deep modernization of the MiG25


      This is an optionally piloted UAV from the movie "Stealth".

      And he looked different:
  • Avior
    Avior 8 October 2021 17: 49
    +1
    ... Britain lost the competence to create a VTOL aircraft, abandoning the development of the next generation VTOL "Harrier" and switching to the American F-35B.

    Britain just made the power plant for the F-35b
    Specifically Rolls-Royce
    1. ja-ja-vw
      ja-ja-vw 8 October 2021 21: 23
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      Britain did just that power plantfor F-35b
      Specifically Rolls-Royce

      belay
      Power point: F135-PW-600 from Pratt & Whitney (USA).
      Rolls-Royce Defense made a Rolls-Royce LiftFan® driven Pegasus, consisting of a drive shaft, 3-bearing swivel module (3BSM) and roller struts
      2 '' 50-stage counter-rotating fan with world leading hollow blade technology.
      Engine (power plant) F135-PW-600 from Pratt & Whitney
      Propeller (to make it clearer, this wheel, propeller) from Rolls-Royce Defense
      1. Avior
        Avior 8 October 2021 21: 38
        +2
        Rolls-Royce made the F-35V power plant based on the Pratt-Whitney engine.
        3BSM is not a fan, but a three-section deflected nozzle of the lift-sustainer engine developed earlier at Rolls Royce, it has nothing to do with Pegasus, there was a completely different system, and which, together with the LiftFan fan, is part of the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem.
        Other firms have participated in the development, but the bulk is made by Rolls Royce based on a 1990 patent by Paul Bevilaqua, chief engineer at Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Projects.
        hi
        1. ja-ja-vw
          ja-ja-vw 8 October 2021 22: 20
          0
          Quote: Avior
          Rolls-Royce made the F-35V power plant based on the Pratt-Whitney engine.

          yeah
          Power plant - an energy complex designed to obtain mechanical energy and propulsion and accessories to it
          The propulsion system there is F135-PW-600: a Rolls Royce has the same attitude towards it, as I almost
          Quote: Avior
          3BSM is not a fan,

          has anyone argued otherwise? I'm not sure
          [quote = ja-ja-vw] rotary module with 3 bearings (3BSM) [/ quote]

          Quote: Avior
          it has nothing to do with Pegasus, there was a completely different system,

          Yeah
          but I have more faith in Rolls-Royce
          https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/aerospace/combat-jets/rolls-royce-liftsystem.aspx
          The system is a descendant of the Pegasus engine, comprised of the Rolls ‑ Royce LiftFan®, Driveshaft, 3 Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM) and Roll Posts. Rolls-Royce has been the industry leader in short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) technology for 60 years.

          Quote: Avior
          Other firms took part in the development, but the bulk was made by Rolls Royce based on a 1990 patent.

          do not know. Anything can be.
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 October 2021 00: 30
            +2
            ... has anyone argued otherwise? I'm not sure

            Precisely you and claimed
            Rolls-Royce Defense made a Rolls-Royce LiftFan® driven Pegasus, consisting of a drive shaft, 3-bearing swivel module (3BSM) and roller struts

            The rest is the same - the quotes, the meaning of which you do not understand well, with a crooked translation from English, are jerked.
            And even in your own quotes it is written
            Rolls-Royce has been the industry leader in short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) technology for 60 years.


            hi
          2. Intruder
            Intruder 10 October 2021 09: 36
            -1
            Power plant - an energy complex designed to obtain mechanical energy and consisting of a propulsion system and auxiliary equipment for it
            Precisely, and here is the canonical design scheme, which worked quite successfully in real combat conditions, for many years:




  • ja-ja-vw
    ja-ja-vw 8 October 2021 21: 16
    +1
    good article good
  • zenion
    zenion 8 October 2021 21: 55
    0
    That's right, let the motor fly by itself, and keep the kerosene in its paws at the desired height.
  • Man from afar
    Man from afar 9 October 2021 04: 45
    0
    It's just hilarious. Your enthusiasm is commendable, of course, but from the "tiltrotor potential" he shouted right into the voice. And after that, the whole article went as easy and entertaining. Yes, in the USSR this could have been realized, since then the competent authorities could easily put a blanket on themselves, and not just ask for a share. Yes, and the production had its own, within the state. And now we in the Russian Orthodox Church are pushing more than into the elementary production of electrical equipment and circuits within Russia (this is so to understand the scale of the problem). And we are taking all the equipment from abroad, paying in dollars at exorbitant prices. And at the same time, every fry on the way of this money strives to remove the cream from every ruble allocated from the budget, in order to replenish the account in offshores. What kind of progress, new engines, can we talk about if the only confident growth in the country is demonstrated by the bellies of the servants of the people?
  • Mikhail Shilo
    Mikhail Shilo 9 October 2021 11: 04
    0
    A series of articles from the cycle "We were ahead of the rest with the Yak-141 and its engine."
    Yes they were. 30 years ago.
    Since then, the Yakovlev Design Bureau has passed away. All (people) possessing these same VTOL competencies are gone.
    You say the European aviation industry is slowly degrading? With Airbus. And ours, then, rushes to the sky-high heights with ... who? Dry?
    Also with aircraft engines. Aren't you embarrassed that AMNTK Soyuz promises characteristics of a new generation on an engine that is 40 years old, without "new materials and technologies"? How?! What is the magic: "effective design solutions"? Where does the know-how come from? Aliens prompted? The whole world, riveting engines in metal in thousands, did not figure out how, but in AMNTK Soyuz, riveting incredible engines on paper, they were able to come up with on paper, like using technologies from 40 years ago, to fly into space on paper! What vertical takeoff on a cold stream ?! Author, you are kind of an expert, aren't you? How can you believe the lies of the girls of the marketing department of the office, which for decades has been sitting practically without money (orders) and is ready to promise anything to anyone. With all due respect to the history of the Union.
    On paper, the MiG-41 will also fly in near space, and even the general director of the MiG blurted out this nonsense! For which the entire KB team was ashamed and uncomfortable.
    And then to the pros and cons of VTOL aircraft. This class has one plus - short / vertical takeoff / landing. Everything.
    In ALL other parameters, they will ALWAYS lose to classic cars.
    For at least the lifting motors have to be carried, at least the lifting fan will have to be carried. It also weighs a lot and does not work normally.
    Your idea of ​​high-altitude airfields is interesting, but how many of them do we have? Name at least those that are above 4000m? No one. And then why build a garden? To invent how to turn the LIFT engine flow into the air intake instead of lifting .... Doesn't this remind you of a "perpetual motion machine" made of an electric motor and a generator on the same shaft and electrically connected?
    1. Shopping Mall
      9 October 2021 15: 53
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      And then to the pros and cons of VTOL aircraft. This class has one plus - short / vertical takeoff / landing. Everything.


      This is not enough.

      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      In ALL other parameters, they will ALWAYS lose to classic cars.


      The question is how much? I consider the risk of destruction of "large" airfields and aircraft on them very high. It is more realistic to disperse and mask mobile aerodromes with VTOL aircraft. This does not mean that VTOL aircraft should replace conventional aircraft, but complement it completely. And we'll talk about the Navy and VTOL aircraft.

      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      For at least the lifting motors have to be carried, at least the lifting fan will have to be carried. It also weighs a lot and does not work normally.


      But not that much either. I have already said that with a carrying capacity of 8-12 tons, 2 tons is not such a big sacrifice.

      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      Your idea of ​​high-altitude airfields is interesting, but how many of them do we have? Name at least those that are above 4000m? No one.


      But others do. Hindus may well be interested.

      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      Think of how to wrap the LIFT engine flow into the air intake instead of lifting ...


      Well, firstly, during takeoff, it will be used for its intended purpose, and secondly, the problem of providing the aircraft with air is not only in the highlands, but also during intensive maneuvering, and at high altitudes. It's not about installing a fan for these purposes, but about expanding the functionality of the fan used for vertical / short takeoff.

      Quote: Mikhail Shilo
      Doesn't this remind you of a "perpetual motion machine" of an electric motor and a generator on the same shaft and electrically connected?


      No. Just an extra supercharger, like a turbine in a car,
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 9 October 2021 21: 11
        0
        Quote: AVM
        I consider the risk of destruction of "large" airfields and aircraft on them very high. It is more realistic to disperse and mask mobile aerodromes with VTOL aircraft.

        Therefore, strategic VTOL bombers are needed. One of the options for a VTOL strategist:

        Estimation of parameters of a lifting fan with a diameter of 4.6m:

        It is estimated that the power that must be supplied to the lifting fan with a diameter of 4.6 m to create a lifting force of 107 tons will be 136 MW. Those. For each of the four turbojet engines, the VTOL strategist accounts for 34 MW of power consumption for the promotion of the lifting fan.
        With a take-off weight of 53 tons (with almost empty fuel tanks), a heavy VTOL strategist will be able to perform vertical takeoff even on two working turbojet bypass engines (out of four) with downward-turned nozzles spinning the counter-coaxial blades of the lift fan. But then he has to refuel in the air.
        1. DO
          DO 10 October 2021 01: 06
          0
          How to covertly transport such a colossus? Make a quick assembly out of "blocks"? But here the question of technical feasibility will arise squarely ...
          1. Svetlana
            Svetlana 10 October 2021 23: 27
            0
            Quote: DO
            How to covertly transport such a colossus?

            She will transport herself. Stealth is ensured by the geometrical shape of the fuselage skin.
            1. DO
              DO 11 October 2021 17: 43
              0
              I do not want to enter into a technical debate, but humanity does not yet know how to make material objects invisible from the word at all. Moreover, such large and terribly interesting aircraft for "partners". We can only talk about disguise as the surrounding reality. But it is unclear how to disguise the transportation of such an oversized contraption.
      2. DO
        DO 10 October 2021 11: 47
        +1
        I am pleased to approve of the balanced and pragmatic answers given by AVM to Mikhail Shilo.
  • An61
    An61 9 October 2021 11: 18
    +1
    It is possible to create a reinforced concrete or a metal parabolic mirror near the ground to effectively reflect the jet stream of the main engine.
    You don't have to climb high.
    You may not need afterburner during takeoff.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 9 October 2021 22: 49
    +1
    VTOL niche, small aircraft. In our reality. A carrier-based fighter is more expensive, better than a land-based one, but it uses standard solutions. And the cost of a 100t.tn aircraft carrier and 35tn udk for VTOL aircraft, I don't think it will be critical.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 13 October 2021 14: 29
    0
    Don't you think that the destruction of the runway coverage by a jet stream is not an aircraft problem, it is an airfield problem?
  • wow
    wow 14 October 2021 12: 22
    0
    On the MiG-21, the SPS mode was turned on only when the flaps were deflected by 45 degrees. , i.e. in landing mode. Oh, and we suffered at one time with the appearance of cracks in the air bleed pipes for the ATP. The head has already forgotten, but the hands still remember ....
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 17 October 2021 07: 51
    +1
    After "Yak-141 was not inferior in terms of flight characteristics of the MiG-29, and in some it won" further this nonsense, you can not read. Let's compare the rate of climb, instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate. Let's see the range on internal fuel only. Let's take a look at the useful load.
    The Yak-141 shamefully merges not only the Migu-29, but, according to ALL indicators, except for the speed at the afterburner (and when is it used in combat?) Even merges the modernized old man Harrier. By the way, the Harrier can carry the AIM120, and what kind of Air-Air missiles could the Yak-141 carry and HOW MUCH? By the way, there were very good radars on the Sea Harrier and American Harriers, what about the performance characteristics with the radar on the Yak-141?
    By the way, the US Air Force abandoned the lift engines / systems, considering them ballast. Raise the fan (fan) - only on the Marine F-35B to act from "landing ships" as a Harrier (that is, from Light aircraft carriers). By the way, the LTH F-35B is lower than either the F-35A or the F-35S - you have to pay for everything. There is no freebie, and if you have an additional engine or fan or other systems, then it weighs something.
    And if Harrier could do Vectoring In Forward Flight (VIFF). Neither the Yak141 nor the F-35 CAN do this.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 17 October 2021 15: 58
    0
    Yes, it's all tied to the engine.

    If it turns out to create an aircraft with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,5 or more, all the voiced problems will disappear.