Not "Yak38", not "Harrier", but who?

Many sources today are talking about the fact that China pays a lot of attention to the creation of its aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing. There were many statements, they sometimes contradicted each other, but since there is no fire without smoke, and the Chinese themselves know how to keep secrets more than perfectly (probably best of all in the world), there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: work in the direction of their VTOL aircraft in China go.

Another question is why? After all, it seemed that China had already mastered the independent production of its aircraft carriers, there are sea planes, why “mud on a hillock”?

Not everything is as simple as it seems. In the Celestial Empire, in general, historically they did not like outwardly simple paths, everything is twisted there on several levels. And therefore, in order to try to understand what they want to do in China, one must plunge into history.

And history tells us that after the end of the Second World War, countries that were at the peak of the development of aircraft construction began active work towards aircraft that would require a minimum of space for takeoff and landing. Helicopters had already begun to come into use, but it was already becoming clear that the speed of an aircraft was an unattainable thing for a rotorcraft.

But in general, the military in different countries simply organized a boom in the development of VTOL aircraft. The Americans, the Dutch, the Italians, the French, the Germans, the British all made their mark in the VTOL effort. By the way, the French (Mirage III-V) and the Germans (VJ-101) had very interesting developments, but, as you remember, only Great Britain (Harrier) and the USSR (Yak-38) really managed to fly and fight in a meaningful way .

Mirage III-V

VJ-101

The Yak-38 was tested in the combat conditions of Afghanistan, showed itself quite well, the trouble is that the Su-25 was an order of magnitude better.

The Harrier became the star of the Great Britain-Argentina match in the Falklands/Malvinas, successfully tyrannizing the Argentine army and navy and shooting down 31 Argentine aircraft.

And, in fact, these aircraft became the pinnacle (well, Harrier) of the development of VTOL aircraft. Then there was oblivion, a dead end, and even the appearance of the F-35В, which cannot be considered a full-fledged VTOL aircraft, did not correct the situation.

By the way, yes: the F-35B is an aircraft that has opportunity short takeoff and vertical landing. The opportunity is not in vain boldly emphasized, because the Lightning can take off and land vertically under certain conditions. The regular mode for him is not vertical, but a shortened takeoff. Vertical takeoff for it is possible only with half-empty fuel tanks and a small (20-25% of nominal) combat load. And planting is generally better empty.

That is why many experts consider the F-35В to be a kind of conditional VTOL aircraft. But in fact, only the Harrier and the Yak-38 can be considered full-fledged vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that participated in real battles. And even then, the absence of radars on the aircraft made the aircraft an attack aircraft capable of defeating the enemy exclusively with small arms and bombs and unguided rocket weapons.

As a result, the oil crisis of the eighties of the last century sentenced all VTOL projects. The fault was simply the huge voracity of aircraft engines during takeoff-hover-landing, which, accordingly, reduced the range. In this regard, both the Yak-38 (combat radius of 190 km) and the Harrier (combat radius of 348 km) did not stand out much for the better.

In general, with all the visible prospects, even today, with the current level of technology development, VTOL aircraft have not only fat pluses, but also fat minuses. And it's hard to say which is fatter.

Pros:
- VTOL does not need a runway, but a helicopter-type runway;
- cars can hover like helicopters, turn around on the spot, but reach much higher speeds in flight.

Cons:
- huge fuel consumption in takeoff and hover modes;
- the complexity of the production and maintenance of VTOL aircraft;
- high price;
- smaller combat radius and combat load;
- a higher level of pilot training is needed;
- more frequent runway repairs compared to conventional aerodromes.

Today, the situation in the world is as follows: the last Harriers are in service in the UK, about 50 F-35Bs are in service in the USA, Great Britain and Italy. Soviet aircraft have long turned into museum pieces at best.

And then, suddenly, China.

But why all of a sudden? The progress made by the Chinese military industry cannot be denied. A country that some 50-60 years ago armed its army with imported weapons, today, not only does it provide for itself with almost everything, but it also enters the world arms market.

On the one hand, yes, the PLA has a lot of licensed equipment, but excuse me, a license is just a permit for production plus technology. And factories and hands are needed, as it were, their own. And they are in China, just as the country has created a fairly decent staff of military engineers and designers, who are now quite normally developing modern types of weapons, including aircraft.

And in the Chinese military press (I read in the PLA Daily), articles have repeatedly appeared on the topic of the need for the PLA of precisely VTOL aircraft. And somehow quietly (generally for the PRC, it is common) information slipped in the foreign press about the resumption of work on the Jian-18 project. Written by the Japanese and Americans, who are up to their necks trying to get into the Chinese military.

In general, it is worth noting here that Chinese experts unanimously say that the PRC is not going to take part in hostilities at a great distance from its territory. This is more than logical, the country demonstrates its peacefulness in every possible way, but next to its shores ...

A local conflict over one of the disputed territories is easy. All these islands, archipelagos, atolls - in general, the PRC has so many disputed territories that there is where to turn around. Around any disputed naval element (Senkaku, Spratly, Taiwan), not just a conflict, but a full-scale landing operation can unfold. Wherein aviation there is never too much.

And here VTOL looks very. An unequipped platform, a "jump" airfield, anything can become a base. And given how any army "loves" the airfields of its enemy, VTOL aircraft have a chance to continue flying from airfields after they have been processed with any type of weapons.

Chinese observers reasonably note that VTOL aircraft can be deployed not only on aircraft carriers, which the PLA has few, and on the wings of which the main load will fall, but also on project 075 aircraft-carrying universal landing ships. Yes, there are only three of them so far, but six are planned to be built .

UDC, which is capable of carrying 28-30 helicopters in hangars, can easily take on deck and VTOL aircraft. Considering that all the necessary aviation infrastructure is already on the ships, you just have to push the helicopters.

What is known about "Jian-18"? Almost nothing. Sources (mostly Japanese) say that according to the project it will be an aircraft capable of flying at supersonic speeds and having a combat radius of about 2 km. Naturally, the design will contain elements of stealth, radar equipment based on radar with AFAR, in general, it turns out something like that, at the level of generation 000+.

The only weak point of the new aircraft is the engines. Achilles' heel of all Chinese aviation. You can give a bunch of arguments, but alas, so far the Chinese aviation industry is not able to give out at least something more or less similar to the AL-31F in terms of reliability. And how this problem will be solved - no one says yet.

“I blinded him from what was”

That's about it, yes. Where did Jian-18 come from, who knows? And this, in fact, is the same Lego !!!

The Chinese really wanted to buy a Harrier back in the 70s, since friendship with the USSR, as it were, went apart. But I had to want right up to 1996, when a British collector exchanged a decommissioned and practically lifeless Harrier for a flying copy of either I-15 or I-15bis, sources say differently. In general, the parties were satisfied, as they say.

The nineties were generally very profitable for the Chinese. Together with the aircraft-carrying cruisers "Kyiv" and "Minsk" bought in Russia, China received at least 3 Yak-38 aircraft from the air wings of the ships. Indeed, why trifle, if a cruiser with a displacement of 30 thousand tons is sold for $1,6 million, then what is a pair of aircraft in the hold?

Together with the unfinished Varyag TAVKR bought from Ukraine, China got the prototype Su-33, T-10K-7, and for a reason. and together with the technical data for testing the prototype at the NITKA complex.

In general - there was something to push off from, wasn't it?

Considering that the experience of copying aircraft (look at the Jian-11 and find 6 differences from the Su-27SK) among Chinese engineers is huge and successful, it is quite possible to create VTOL aircraft.

The main thing is that the Chinese believe that VTOL aircraft will be very useful precisely when conducting landing operations, in small local conflicts. I translate: in order to fight for an island the size of 1/10 of a square kilometer, it makes no sense to drive an aircraft carrier. China is not the United States, they spend money wisely.

But to bring two companies of marines with equipment to the island, having 10-15 helicopters to provide direct support and a VTOL squadron in order to shug everyone who will get confused under the keels from the area - for this, two UDCs and a couple of cover frigates are enough.

Well, work along the coast, if there is someone to work for. Here it is worth remembering that both the Harrier and the Yak-38 were primarily attack aircraft.

What I would like to summarize in the end.

There is only one conclusion, and it is not very pleasant for China. It is clear that the country's leadership is doing everything to make the PLA not only a shield that can protect the country from any problems, but also a sword that can strike at anyone who encroaches.

Shifting the solution of individual problems in conducting military operations from naval aviation to VTOL aircraft with the subsequent transfer of vertical take-off aircraft to land is not the worst scenario. Indeed, such an interpretation has the right to life, although there are also many doubts here.

Take, for example, problems with camouflaging VTOL aircraft at front-line airfields. Due to the development of reconnaissance copters by the Chinese, this is difficult.

Will sooner or later in China be able to bring the "Jian-18" to the sky? Of course yes. They have everything for this, including technologies that will fit, even if they are more than half a century old. The F-35 also borrowed enough from the Yak-141, and without the ideas of Yakovlev Design Bureau it would never have flown.

So yes, see a new GDP aircraft in Beijing at the October 1 parade? Why not? There is only one obstacle here - these are the engines for him. I am more than sure that Chinese engineers will cope with the rest. The question here is when. Even taking into account the level of development that the Chinese defense industry is demonstrating, not earlier than 2030.

Comments

[Thrifty]

So we need VTOL aircraft. Their advantage is in taking off from a small platform with a minimum run-up, and landing by helicopter is strictly vertical. To defeat the same marine drones and their carriers, to work on nearby and weakly protected targets, such as, for example, a military base on an island, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft is actually an ideal option.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Thrifty

So we need VTOL aircraft.

Not needed from the word at all. VTOL is a dead end branch of evolution at this stage. They will always lose to conventional aircraft in all respects. So why produce freaks. With this money, it is better to build a normal aircraft carrier, in operation it will pay for itself, in comparison with a ship with VTOL aircraft, more than once, and even more so in terms of efficiency.

[Doccor18]

Quote: qqqq

Not needed from the word at all. VTOL is a dead end branch of evolution at this stage.

Perhaps I agree with you.
Before the advent of attack UAVs, their massive use, VTOL aircraft made sense, especially for the expeditionary forces of a large fleet. There are very few multi-purpose aircraft carriers, and SSVPs could be deployed on the UDC and (if desired) on converted large merchant ships. But now, with the rapid flourishing of unmanned aircraft, the meaning of VTOL aircraft is lost ...

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

Quote: qqqq
Not needed from the word at all. VTOL is a dead end branch of evolution at this stage.

Perhaps I agree with you.

Here the question is more difficult. The question is WHAT Fleet does Russia need and, accordingly, are they going to BUILD it?
It is quite obvious that VTOL aircraft cannot be considered as the main combat aircraft of the Fleet, incl. for services in DM and OZ, this is an expeditionary force support aircraft. And it already follows from this that such an aircraft can only be needed by a RICH country with a LARGE surface fleet with developed expeditionary forces as part of this Large Fleet. The Russian Federation does not smell of such a Fleet or such ambitions, and it is difficult to talk about any prospects in this area with the existing military-political leadership and economic bloc.
If the plans were more ambitious, the Economy stronger and more developed, and the Power proactive and active, we could talk about the "Future of the Fleet", the composition of its forces and our ability to get it from Industry.
In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing to talk about ... The authorities in this matter are simply incompetent ... Well, at least about the Ground Forces, let it slowly, but come to itself ... somehow immediately forgetting about the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe "Little Army" - cozy and good armed and at the same time certainly - hired ... that is, contracted.
But for China, everything is much more serious. They had the idea to get VTOL aircraft from them since the beginning of the 70s, but after the collapse of the USSR they received not only our TAVKR and Yak-38, but also a few years after the death of our country, at one of the exhibitions (I think it was 1996 ) they bought a prototype of the R-279V-300 engine and technical documentation for it. This engine was developed for the promising Soviet (there are SUCH projects at the end of the country!) VTOL Yak-201 - made using the Stealth technology, with internal placement of weapons and generally a breakthrough aircraft. The power of this engine in afterburner was up to 18 kg.s. with a rotary afterburner nozzle.
The rotary nozzle was not sold to China then, but the engine itself ... was sold directly from the exhibition, because there was no more aircraft for it and there were no other interested parties. And the designers need to eat, because the design bureau also completed this development on its own initiative ... that is, at its own expense.
In short, the engine was sold to the Chinese, but without a rotary nozzle. They later bought this nozzle - in the early 00s they bought it separately.
And since then they have begun work on copying this engine. And things went and are going very hard - the engine was a breakthrough.
By the way, did you notice the coincidence in the thrust? Have you heard about the promising Chinese engine for your J-20? Exactly 18 500 kg.s.
This is what he is.
But with reliability and an acceptable resource, they still do not succeed. . . But they are WORKING on it. And if there were reports in their press that they were WORKING on VTOL aircraft, then the work was nearing its end.
About the plane.
They have been working on it since the late 90s, and I am sure that the Yak-201 was chosen as the basis for it. By the way, he also has a PGO, as the Chinese love (J-10, J-20). So do not hesitate, they fished out all the possible information on the Yak-201 a long time ago, the engine is on the way, and they have played enough on the glider during this time, so I think it has been ready for a long time. But the engine ... if they get a sustainable resource of at least 500+ flight hours, they will deliver it and begin flight tests, bringing the engine to condition. Perhaps this is already happening, and perhaps for a couple of years already.
So do not be surprised if they show their new VTOL aircraft at a future parade. I advise you to look at Wiki and get acquainted with its intended appearance - Yak-201.

What do we have?
And we also started some work 5 years ago or even a little more. But are there engineering and design personnel for this level of tasks?
Engine ?
The engine (as they say) is on the way, get acquainted - R-579V-300.
Thrust at full afterburner 22 or even 000 kg.s.
Maximum non-afterburning thrust - 14 kg.s.
The Tu-22M2 engine had such traction characteristics.
The mass of the engine is about 2100 - 2200 kg.
If such an engine appears in metal and confirms its characteristics and operational capabilities, then it can be ... SUCH build VTOL aircraft ... the Americans will be jealous.
But for this you need to WANT.
By the way, it is precisely two of these engines (afterburner modification) that are planned for ... jet-supersonic.
Well ... it's like "Aurus", only with wings ... Wishlist, of course, but sheikhs and our oligarchs would not mind. By the way, they ordered.

[bayard]

Now why do the Chinese need VTOL aircraft.
The author listed something, but he has a number of inaccuracies. So UDC Type.075, the Chinese plan to build not 6, but 10 pieces. In addition, they already have 10 UDC Type.071 in service. It is smaller than VI and its deck is not solid, but as a "jump airfield" for refueling VTOL aircraft, or even for their temporary basing (but only a couple of VTOL aircraft will enter the hangar).
And do not forget - China has a planned economy. And their plans are being fulfilled. Therefore, looking at how slowly they are building aircraft carriers now, someone might think that China cannot win the naval race with the United States, or at least not be equal in strength.
Therefore, please note that the same UDC Type.075 they are building much faster, and if in a couple of years they suddenly turn out to be quite an advanced VTOL aircraft in mass production, then aircraft carriers are already ready for it. Each such UDC will be able to take on board from 12 to 20 such VTOL aircraft. And given that they will operate in the area of ​​alluvial island bases of China in the South China Sea, using AWACS aircraft of basic aviation (from island airfields) and AWACS helicopters for situational awareness, while being based partly on island bases, partly on UDC, providing Air defense and security of anti-aircraft defense and naval reconnaissance aircraft, as well as to strike at distant enemy forces ... Such ships and VTOL aircraft on them can become a very serious problem for the US Navy and AUKUS.
Therefore, speaking of two (and soon three) PLA aircraft carriers, it should be remembered that they still have in stock ... by the end of the decade, it may already be 10 UDC Type.075. Because they are built quickly.
For a special note. A modern VTOL aircraft in flight characteristics is in no way inferior to a conventional MFI of its class, except for a smaller combat radius of 25-30 percent. And this is not at all critical, because modern MFIs very rarely operate at the limit of their combat radius. The Yak-41 had a combat radius of about 800 km. . For its time, it was VERY good even for an ordinary MFI, especially a light and single-engine one. The Yak-201 had an estimated combat radius of about 1100 km.
For reference, the combat radius is considered during takeoff with a jog along the deck (jump is not required) flight into the zone, work in the zone, return taking into account the emergency fuel supply and vertical landing. So if such a VTOL aircraft has a good AFAR radar and the best RVV SDs that China has ... then in aerial combat, and with the support of an AWACS aircraft, they can present a lot of things to any enemy.

If we had the desire, need, funds and ambitions, we could design a much better VTOL aircraft - with the best performance characteristics, range and combat load ... For the R-579V-300 ... will allow us to do a lot.
But we are still building frigates ... hard.
Maybe sanctions, incl. to charter merchant ships, it will still force them to build their own Merchant Fleet ... And to ensure the freedom of its navigation and for taxes from which, and the Military Fleet?
If we really are not bluffing about Africa and Latin America, supporting the entry of the countries of these regions into the BRICS ... then we will have to provide military-technical support to our new allies ... And for this we need the Navy.
Ocean Fleet.
Both Trade and Military.
And for operations in DM and OZ, our Navy will need ships of the appropriate classes. Incl. and aircraft carriers.
Drones are just aids. For reconnaissance, guidance and target designation. And no heavy high-speed and shock UAVs will be possible without resolving the issue of AI for them. And this is already a question, incl. and ethical. And in the end, the pilot in the cockpit is much more reliable and versatile than any abstruse drone.
And for those who are afraid of the loss of pilots ... you just need to properly educate your children. After all, infantrymen in a war (in the same SVO) die every day by tens and hundreds ... And this is also an ethical question.
Or will we consider the numbers, how much does a pilot and an infantryman cost?
So the nurses of the foot soldiers are unlikely to agree with your arguments.
And in a nuclear war, many pilots generally have only one chance and will, to realize their skills ...
And this also needs to be EDUCATED.
How did they do it in the USSR.
And in the United States then, too, they prepared it that way.

[mmaxx]

One of the main advantages of an aircraft carrier is the low rate of obsolescence and the ease of "modernization". I changed the air group and almost all the modernization. Not everything is so simple, but much easier than on other ships. And an ordinary aircraft, what to upgrade, what to make a new one is much easier than any VTOL aircraft. There are hundreds of times more engines in development and production for conventional aircraft than there will be VTOL aircraft. VTOL is unprofitable in all respects. Even purely financial. Not to mention the fact that making it is a separate crap.

[bayard]

Quote: mmaxx

. There are hundreds of times more engines in development and production for conventional aircraft than there will be VTOL aircraft. VTOL is unprofitable in all respects.

And where did you get it from? The engine is the engine. The engine of the same F-35 is the same on both the F-35A and the F-35B, only on B through the power take-off shaft and worm gear, the torque is also transmitted to the lift fan during takeoff and landing. And who will say that the engine is bad and cannot get up, if necessary, on any other aircraft.
The same R-279V-300 was supposed to get on the Su-47 "Berkut", but since times have changed, they put on it an engine similar in performance from the MiG-31.
If we talk about the promising R-579V-300, then, in addition to VTOL aircraft, it is also tipped for a promising domestic supersonic jet (supersonic business jet), and as the basis for a high-bypass engine for passenger and transport aircraft, and as a power turbine for small thermal power plants (oil and gas workers are very fond of such, they provide themselves with local energy supply with such turbines on associated gas.
And I would recommend two of these engines for a promising strike aircraft MRA (Marine Rocket-carrying). Taking as a basis the enlarged Su-57 glider, a cockpit similar to the cockpit of the Su-34, two GZ anti-ship missiles in the weapons compartment and a pair of RVV SD for self-defense in underwing influxes (at the junction of the wing and center section) ... the Su-57 in such compartments (in influxes) one such missile). On two such engines, you can get a very good MPA aircraft and, in general, the so-called. "medium bomber" to replace the Tu-22M3. Having a takeoff weight of about 85 tons, it would have a range of 7000 to 10 km. and a combat radius of the order of 000 - 3000 km. Its cost will be 4000 - 2 times cheaper than the Tu-2,5, up to 160 million dollars. (It is difficult to extrapolate in rubles due to the instability of the exchange rate). As a result, the demand for this engine will be very high.
the glider for the domestic VTOL aircraft can be taken as a basis from the Su-75, in principle it was conceived that way.
But you can make your own VTOL aircraft only if there is a firm intention to BUILD the Fleet. Big, Ocean Fleet. For the Merchant Fleet is already being built and formed (the same notorious "Shadow Fleet") and it needs protection and freedom of navigation.
If our towers look at least 10-15 years ahead, they must understand that the former Ukraine is obliged to become part of Russia with its entire composition (or, at worst, part of the Union State and under the protectorate of Russia). And this means that the size and potential of Russia will increase very seriously. The Black Sea ports and shipyards, even after restoration, will be able to seriously facilitate the task of building both the Merchant and the Navy. The income of such a state will also increase, and the Navy of the Ocean Zone can be built (in our case) on the income from grain exports alone! And the potential of our grain exports from the Russian Federation + second-hand will grow by about one and a half times. But we export not only grain. Oil, liquefied gas, coal, metal ... all this will have to be transported (because it is safer and more economically profitable) by the forces of the domestic Merchant Navy ... This means a security tax ... in the form of the same insurance, you will have to pay. Here are the funds for the construction and maintenance of your own ocean-class Navy.
If we link our economic and not only future with the countries of Africa, then it will be necessary not only to ensure the security of the trade turnover of our countries, we will also have to support our partners and allies with military force - the force of our Navy. And again, the INSURANCE PAYMENTS of such a turnover will serve as funds for the construction and maintenance of a powerful Navy.
it’s just that for any, the most wonderful idea, you should always provide a reliable financial base, and not look at the budget of your state and think “what then will we deprive our citizens of” or “how will we infringe on ourselves”.
Look at Wagner's business.
All their activities in Africa are paid for by the governments of the countries where they operate and by the businesses whose assets they protect.
And not a penny from the Treasury!
This is how you need to approach the issue of building and maintaining the Fleet. Still really Veliki Gorshkov argued that before proceeding with the construction of the Oceanic Navy, it is necessary to build a Merchant Fleet, which will finance the construction and maintenance of the Military Fleet. There were even approximate standards for HOW MANY civilian ships need to be built in order to lay down one submarine. Such ships were to be built 10 (ten). They even listed me according to the types of such ships.

[velikoros-xnumx]

Quote: bayard

Quote: mmaxx

. There are hundreds of times more engines in development and production for conventional aircraft than there will be VTOL aircraft. VTOL is unprofitable in all respects.

And where did you get it from? The engine is the engine. The engine of the same F-35 is the same on both the F-35A and the F-35B, only on B through the power take-off shaft and worm gear, the torque is also transmitted to the lift fan during takeoff and landing. And who will say that the engine is bad and cannot get up, if necessary, on any other aircraft.
The same R-279V-300 was supposed to get on the Su-47 "Berkut", but since times have changed, they put on it an engine similar in performance from the MiG-31.
If we talk about the promising R-579V-300, then, in addition to VTOL aircraft, it is also tipped for a promising domestic supersonic jet (supersonic business jet), and as the basis for a high-bypass engine for passenger and transport aircraft, and as a power turbine for small thermal power plants (oil and gas workers are very fond of such, they provide themselves with local energy supply with such turbines on associated gas.
And I would recommend two of these engines for a promising strike aircraft MRA (Marine Rocket-carrying). Taking as a basis the enlarged Su-57 glider, a cockpit similar to the cockpit of the Su-34, two GZ anti-ship missiles in the weapons compartment and a pair of RVV SD for self-defense in underwing influxes (at the junction of the wing and center section) ... the Su-57 in such compartments (in influxes) one such missile). On two such engines, you can get a very good MPA aircraft and, in general, the so-called. "medium bomber" to replace the Tu-22M3. Having a takeoff weight of about 85 tons, it would have a range of 7000 to 10 km. and a combat radius of the order of 000 - 3000 km. Its cost will be 4000 - 2 times cheaper than the Tu-2,5, up to 160 million dollars. (It is difficult to extrapolate in rubles due to the instability of the exchange rate). As a result, the demand for this engine will be very high.
the glider for the domestic VTOL aircraft can be taken as a basis from the Su-75, in principle it was conceived that way.
But you can make your own VTOL aircraft only if there is a firm intention to BUILD the Fleet. Big, Ocean Fleet. For the Merchant Fleet is already being built and formed (the same notorious "Shadow Fleet") and it needs protection and freedom of navigation.
If our towers look at least 10-15 years ahead, they must understand that the former Ukraine is obliged to become part of Russia with its entire composition (or, at worst, part of the Union State and under the protectorate of Russia). And this means that the size and potential of Russia will increase very seriously. The Black Sea ports and shipyards, even after restoration, will be able to seriously facilitate the task of building both the Merchant and the Navy. The income of such a state will also increase, and the Navy of the Ocean Zone can be built (in our case) on the income from grain exports alone! And the potential of our grain exports from the Russian Federation + second-hand will grow by about one and a half times. But we export not only grain. Oil, liquefied gas, coal, metal ... all this will have to be transported (because it is safer and more economically profitable) by the forces of the domestic Merchant Navy ... This means a security tax ... in the form of the same insurance, you will have to pay. Here are the funds for the construction and maintenance of your own ocean-class Navy.
If we link our economic and not only future with the countries of Africa, then it will be necessary not only to ensure the security of the trade turnover of our countries, we will also have to support our partners and allies with military force - the force of our Navy. And again, the INSURANCE PAYMENTS of such a turnover will serve as funds for the construction and maintenance of a powerful Navy.
it’s just that for any, the most wonderful idea, you should always provide a reliable financial base, and not look at the budget of your state and think “what then will we deprive our citizens of” or “how will we infringe on ourselves”.
Look at Wagner's business.
All their activities in Africa are paid for by the governments of the countries where they operate and by the businesses whose assets they protect.
And not a penny from the Treasury!
This is how you need to approach the issue of building and maintaining the Fleet. Still really Veliki Gorshkov argued that before proceeding with the construction of the Oceanic Navy, it is necessary to build a Merchant Fleet, which will finance the construction and maintenance of the Military Fleet. There were even approximate standards for HOW MANY civilian ships need to be built in order to lay down one submarine. Such ships were to be built 10 (ten). They even listed me according to the types of such ships.

Without further ado, thanks for your detailed comments. For the most part, I absolutely agree with your calculations and arguments.

[bayard]

Thank you for your rating too.
Regarding VTOL aircraft, so many copies have already been broken, incl. and at VO, only 5-7 years ago the discussions were much more competent. The aviation engineer of the Saki regiment also took part in them ... He has not been in the comments for a long time ...

[velikoros-xnumx]

Quote: bayard

Thank you for your rating too.
Regarding VTOL aircraft, so many copies have already been broken, incl. and at VO, only 5-7 years ago the discussions were much more competent. The aviation engineer of the Saki regiment also took part in them ... He has not been in the comments for a long time ...

On display since 2013. Alas, the number of participants has increased, but the level of their competencies and education has fallen. Someone is no longer alive, including from the "founding fathers"-moderators. Blessed memory to them. I remember earlier there was a discussion and comments were more informative than the original articles. Alas, this is the price of mass ...

[mmaxx]

By engines. However, it will be a different engine. Albeit unified in many details. But in production it will be much more expensive. disproportionate to the complexity. Especially given the much smaller program. Americans are good. They have a lot of UDC and allies who, if only they try not to buy. And how many of these VTOL aircraft do we need? Maintain production facilities, workshops, technologies .... even a converted engine needs to be designed and tested, what awaits there at the development stage? It's time and money. The same is true for aircraft production. It is necessary to use some kind of factory. And the release program is nothing. Why should the plant live? Here they released the deck, and then everything. The MO wants to make more airplanes. And that's all, already tyutyu. There is nothing at the factory. The factory needs to work. And someone has to pay for the mob reserve. State i.e. How are we with this? But no way. Today, some are in power, then others. Then they change their point of view. And taking into account the attempt to squeeze the clean out of everything, the industry will not believe anyone. Because she works on money. No money, no other things.
We all see that in the West now no one even wants to make shells for money. Today is the war, you will invest, and then they will say a big thank you, we will stir up the green energy here. Industrialists will come up with 1000 reasons and will not do it. Or money up front until the investment pays off.
Our situation is exactly the same. Not much difference either.

[bayard]

Quote: mmaxx

By engines. However, it will be a different engine. Albeit unified in many details. But in production it will be much more expensive.

The VTOL engine will always be more complicated and more expensive. Another thing is that initially the R-79V-300 was created precisely as an engine for VTOL aircraft, and not only for a rotary nozzle (this can be attached to any other), but also with the function of power take-off from the shaft to operate the lifting fan. The R-79V-300 was immediately designed for such a fan, but since the work with the transmission and the fan itself was delayed, the Yak-41 was made simpler - with two lifting engines, like the Yak-38. This was a temporary solution. Already the Yak-201 (should have appeared in the 90s) was designed with a fan. Here is its engine, then the engine in its entire assembly, with a lifting fan and a rotary nozzle, the Americans took for their F-35V, moreover, together with the design team of the Yakovlev Design Bureau.
So the R-579V-300 was originally designed with the ability to connect the shaft to the fan transmission, and under the rotary nozzle. And in all other respects, it's just a very good and powerful aircraft engine, with an afterburner thrust of up to 22 kg.s. (in the re-forced mode, the thrust can be raised to 000 kg.s.), without afterburner thrust up to 23 kg.s. and weight without body kit (fan and rotary nozzle) about 000 kg. And you can put it on anything. At least for the same Su-14. This is what kind of animal it will be.
By the way, they noticed that when demonstrating the Su-75, we did not say a word about VTOL aircraft. But the glider is ideal for VTOL aircraft - take it, use it. Here is the unification - single-engine LFMI and VTOL aircraft in one airframe ... well, almost in one. But the engine is one.
Again, for a promising MPA aircraft. Two engines and a machine-beast. With excellent performance characteristics, range and combat load. And not only for the MPA (like the Tu-22M3), but also as a medium-range strike aircraft.
Is this not enough for you? In my opinion, for one engine, the field of application is quite serious. And this is without taking into account the export capabilities of the same Su-75.

Quote: mmaxx

Americans are good. They have a lot of UDC and allies who, if only they try not to buy. And how many of these VTOL aircraft do we need?

Let's count.
Moreover, we will consider it not for "little Russia", tortured by isolation and sanctions, but for the Great Power after the Victory in the NWO. I already wrote about the financial part, for the construction of a large Oceanic Navy, you just need to establish a State Insurance Company for all long-distance ships in Russian (and not only) jurisdiction. And with the income from this Company and build the Fleet. This is enough, because the Large Merchant Fleet began to be built and formed.
So - how much UDC do we need.
Well, let's talk about the fleets. And taking into account that this is not so much UDC as average AV VI of the order of 40 tons. So I see the need for FOUR such UDCs in the Pacific Fleet (services in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk to cover positional areas of combat deployment of SSBNs, protecting them from enemy anti-submarine aircraft, providing and the safety of the work of their own aircraft PLO... Support for surface forces in the area, services in the region of the Malacca Straits, periodic services in the Indian Ocean), for the Northern Fleet - THREE such UDCs (services in the deployment areas of SSBNs, protection from enemy aircraft PLO, reconnaissance support and air defense orders, services in the North Atlantic), and for the Black Sea Fleet also THREE such UDCs (tasks - services in the Mediterranean as part of the 000th operational squadron, services in the Indian Ocean in the Horn of Africa).
That's about it and so much. moreover, the UDC data will be the core of the KUG \ AUG operating in the DM and OZ.
At a cost, such UDCs will be MUCH cheaper and simpler than a classic aircraft carrier, but their air group will be within 20 pieces. VTOL aircraft, plus AWACS helicopters (4 each) and PLO helicopters (4 units). In the case of providing an amphibious operation from the sea, instead of PLO helicopters and part of the VTOL air wing, landing helicopters can be taken on board.
If the classical AB of such a VI is estimated at about 2 billion. USD , then the UDC of the same VI will cost seriously less. But even if it's the same, it's worth it.
They should be built at least at two shipyards at the same time. Let's say on the "Gulf" (Kerch) and on the "Star" (Big Stone). Money, I repeat, to take from the income of maritime trade through the State Insurance Company.

Quote: mmaxx

And how many of these VTOL aircraft do we need?

Well, let's count. Ten UDCs, 20 VTOL aircraft on each, this is already 200 pieces. plus some reserve on the coast to compensate for losses and in case of use from auxiliary offshore platforms (the so-called mobilization aircraft carriers based on tankers, container ships, dry cargo ships) for a sharp build-up of forces in a short time. So we need about 300 VTOL aircraft. And this is a very good park for this type of aircraft. In addition, it is possible that OUR allies will want such machines for themselves.
Why not ?
Are our BRICS partners the same? Brazil ? Argentina ? India? Mexico in the future? Venezuela? Algeria? Egypt (he already has two UDCs)? South Africa (and why not)?
Here's how to get down to business. We will get a good car, but we will build a UDC, you see, others will become infected with this fashion.
And yes, do not forget about the LFMI park in the same Su-75 glider. It is necessary to build such from 600 to 1000 pieces. Do not forget that after the NMD we will become seriously larger in territory, population, economic potential, and we will have to keep part of the forces in friendly countries abroad (as now in Syria). Of course, at the expense of the host, but mutually beneficial.
So, there will be enough work for factories for many years, and business is of interest, if, of course, it is responsible and knows how to look into the future.
We have a period of military conflicts ahead of us. You have to count 10 years. And this reality is for everyone, not only for our God-saved Fatherland. So the short-sighted and stubborn will either run away from the country, or rebuild, or be replaced by the Right ones.
You just can't survive without it.
Incl. and domestic economic and political elite.

[knn54]

I confess, praise is stingy. But in this case, the author is a plus!

[Eug]

Many believe that the basis of the J-20 engines was the Soviet R79-300, handed over to the Chinese with full design, production and operational documentation, at first without a rotary nozzle, then on it. If a lifting fan scheme is adopted, then, in my opinion, modern modifications of this engine will be able to provide it.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Eug

If a lifting fan scheme is adopted, then, in my opinion, modern modifications of this engine will be able to provide it.

And where to put the extra weight of the engine, fuel consumption during takeoff and landing. And in any case, we will get a neutered aircraft with minimal parameters to facilitate and implement the VViP parameter. With whom to fight on it? For the Papuans, a helicopter will do, and with an equal opponent, VTOL aircraft will be carried out at one gate.

[Romario_Argo]

R79V-300 is rather weak 15500 kgf, AMNTK Soyuz has R179-300 with a thrust of 19800 kgf
+ 2 RD-41 4100 kgf each = 8200 kgf.
Total lifting thrust 28 kgf
old Yak-141 empty 11,6 tons, max takeoff 19,5 tons
in a new project based on the Yak-141, composites of at least 20-30% are being massively introduced
VTOL aircraft will be empty 10 tons, fuel 5 tons, armament 4 tons
Total = 19 tons
- engine thrust on vertical takeoff 28 tons, power-to-weight ratio 1,47
- thrust in flight 19,8 tons, power-to-weight ratio 1,04
R179-300 will still be pumped up to 23000 kgf, and 2RD-41 will be brought up to 5000 kgf = 33000 kgf on takeoff
turbines will be reworked, blades will be changed to Blisks, control to digital
in terms of maximum mass, it approaches the Su-35 - but this is 1 main engine (!)
it will then be Russian imba

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

- thrust in flight 19,8 tons,

Maximum afterburner thrust 18 kg.s. And this engine has never flown. There was only an experienced, and not finished, sample.

Quote: Romario_Argo

R179-300 will still be pumped up to 23000 kgf

The new modification is called R-579V-300.
Maximum non-afterburning thrust - up to 14 kg.s.
Maximum afterburner thrust - up to 22 kg.s.
The mass of the engine is about 2200 kg.
And these characteristics are also only calculated, at best - bench ones.
If this engine is really created (of which there is no firm certainty), it will really be a breakthrough and such an engine will be in demand.

[Romario_Argo]

you are absolutely right, we are waiting for the turbines to be pumped to the current level
if roughly and briefly: raise the temperature, increase the density - by reducing the gaps + plasma ignition + number
even if we consider the R-579V-300 22000 kgf with a maximum weight of the new VTOL aircraft up to 19 000 kg
you can NOT use RD-41
and if R-579 + 2 RD-41 = 30 kgf, with a mass of 200 kg.
new VTOL aircraft - will be comparable to the Su-35 and Su-34 - BOMB

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

and if R-579 + 2 RD-41 = 30 200 kgf

During vertical takeoff / landing, the afterburner does not turn on. therefore, it is necessary to consider the afterburner thrust of the engine, and this is 14 t.s. If vertical thrust engines are used, then for symmetry they must have a thrust of 7 t.s. each, in total there will be 28 t.s. Therefore, the weight of the apparatus should be no more than 24 tons. And this is the maximum landing. The VTOL aircraft will always take off with mileage (except for very extreme cases), so the effect of suction to the ground is removed (when taking off vertically).
VTOL aircraft on such an engine can be made simply wonderful, the main thing is that it be in demand. For the sake of a fleet of several dozen aircraft, no one will do this and will not finance it. A batch of at least 200 such machines is justified, otherwise it is simply unprofitable either to build them or to maintain such a small fleet of unique machines.
But most likely they will install a lifting fan - this dramatically reduces fuel consumption during takeoff / landing. And although I made the calculation that the scheme with lifting engines can be lighter in dry weight than the scheme with a fan, while the design of the VTOL aircraft itself will be "slenderer" (the fan greatly inflates the fuselage, aerodynamics suffer), but if you make the scheme according to the patterns Yak-201 (and according to the F-35V patterns - its derivative), then they will still install a fan. This is technically more difficult, but fuel economy on a ship and when flying over the sea still matters. Well, the load on the deck from a hot jet of one or still three engines matters the same way.
With the R-579V-300 VTOL aircraft can turn out to be much better than the F-35V, even if the same scheme is used. And the Su-75 glider is quite suitable for such an aircraft. When the first photographs were leaked under black cases, many decided that this was precisely the VTOL aircraft.
But it is necessary to count on a park of about 200 pieces. VTOL aircraft, and this is ... about 10 (ten) UDC / VI aircraft carriers under 40 tons. Such aircraft carriers will be much simpler in design and cheaper than a classic aircraft carrier with catapults and arresters. And the characteristics and capabilities of the air group will be at the level of ordinary light MFIs (say, at the level of the MiG-000S or even higher). The question remains with the provision of AWACS. On such aircraft it will be possible to base only AWACS helicopters ... but this is technically much easier for us.
But it all depends on what they decide in the towers.

[Amateur]

If the Chinese manage to create an analogue of the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine with a sufficient resource and reliability, then they will also create a VTOL aircraft. But I personally doubt it.
Everything else - "from the evil one." It is possible to consider the Yak-38 with a combat radius < 200 km and WITHOUT a radar as a combat aircraft only "to spite the Americans"

[Thrifty]

There was only one real combat vertical in the world, this was not the supersonic Yak141 that went into the series. The rest is all near-vertical encroachments.

[Amateur]

The Yak-141 is also not a combat aircraft. More like a technology demonstrator. Never flew supersonic. There were no weapons. Maybe the plane would have been brought. But it didn't work out. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html

[bayard]

Quote: Amateur

The Yak-141 is also not a combat aircraft. More like a technology demonstrator.

No, the Yak-41 is quite a combat aircraft that has passed all the tests and set a lot of records. He had the same radar as the MiG-29, while he had a larger combat load (2800 kg. vs. 2000 kg.) And a larger combat radius (800 km.). And this is during takeoff with a run along the deck (without a springboard) and a vertical landing.

Quote: Amateur

More like a technology demonstrator. Never flew supersonic.

He flew and even set several world records for his class. 1800 km/h+ .
So next to his direct peer and classmate (light fighter), he looked very dignified. With a lower maximum speed and a slightly lower ceiling, it had a greater combat load and combat radius. The armament was the same as the MiG-29 - R-27 and R-73. In terms of maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio, it was practically not inferior.

Quote: Amateur

Maybe the plane would have been brought. But it didn't work out.

He was already practically brought up, it remained to marry him with the deck of an aircraft carrier ... But they were too smart with the seat on the Kuznetsov - they made a lattice deck with a gas outlet ... the dynamics of such a landing was not familiar to the pilots yet (there was no suction effect, to which they are accustomed ) and the plane made a hard landing, a fire ... and the project was closed with the relief of the liberals.
According to the plans of the 80s, in the mid-90s, another, already completely revolutionary VTOL Yak-201, was supposed to appear. Made using STEALTH technology, with a more powerful engine (18 kg.s. in afterburner) and with a lifting fan (it was later installed on the F-500).
But the designers of the Yakovlev Design Bureau, under an intergovernmental contract with the United States, were seconded to the states, where they created the F-35V for the Americans. Moreover, they worked on the airframe and the engine (most importantly - on the engine) and its rotary nozzle. In 2005, part of our specialists, having completed the contract, returned home. That year I talked with one of these designers, he showed me the clock presented by Bush. His son stayed there, but he returned.
So everything worked out for him (Yak), only in the USA.

I repeat once again the Yak-41 was a full-fledged combat fighter. Moreover, as part of the air wing, he played the role of an interceptor on duty on deck. When ready, the first pair had to take off from the parking lot, without a run, vertically. The second pair took off after a run.
Look at the comparative characteristics of the Yak-41 and F-18 of the first modifications (not "Super Hornet", but "Ordinary Hornet"). The Hornet did not even have an advantage in combat radius. The thrust-to-weight ratio was higher for ours. The only thing inferior to the Yak-41 was the combat load ... but it was created as a fighter, and not as a striker.
And yes, in the terms of reference for the Yak-38 there was a clear definition - "deck attack aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing." And if you look at the characteristics of the Yak-38M (aka Yak-39), you will see that it was already a completely different aircraft in terms of capabilities. And all they did was install a more powerful engine, improve automation ... and the combat radius, payload immediately increased, and in general it fully corresponded to the parameters of the English "Super-Harrier". And this despite the fact that he was carrying two "extra" engines.
The Yak-41 (fighter, air defense KUG \ AUG) and Yak-39 (attack aircraft) were supposed to serve on the first two "Krechet" at the same time.
And no radar was ever provided for the Yak-38. They tried to install it on the Yak-39, but by that time the Yak-41 had already appeared and the topic was closed. An attack aircraft does not need a radar. He had to finish off the wounded ships after hitting them with heavy anti-ship missiles ... from his own "Krechet".

[Luminman]

Quote: Amateur

If the Chinese manage to create an analogue of the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine

The same voracious on takeoff and landing, a relatively small resource, an additional container of water to cool the turbine blades. and reliability is also somehow not very ... so the Chinese have nothing to equal. And in general, in my opinion, VTOL aircraft are a past stage of evolution, nothing more than the peak of technology ...

[NIKN]

Interesting topic. Whether it’s needed or not, it’s probably up to those who make some bets on VTOL aircraft, the Chinese have taken care of equipping the UDC with these weapons, I can’t see from the sofa what seduced them and what they want from it. So everything rests on what you want from this weapon, with what tactics of its use. Of course, you can want all the parameters of modern aircraft of the latest generations, and also add fantasies such as near unmanned space (here, neither at the cost nor with modern capabilities, nothing can be achieved). But in the niche of application with UDC in this segment there is nothing (and how to use it is a matter of those who want to use it), convertiplanes turned out to be no better option, helicopters also do not cover all needs (to create a high-speed helicopter with similar speeds is also an unrealizable task not to mention the price). So that the niche is empty, and as you know, a holy place is never empty. So, you need to set real (not overpriced, but only necessary for the tasks) performance characteristics and I think an acceptable option and at an affordable price VTOL aircraft can be created.

[bayard]

Quote: NIKNN

Interesting topic. Whether it’s needed or not, it’s probably up to those who make some bets on VTOL aircraft, the Chinese have taken care of equipping the UDC with these weapons, I can’t see from the sofa what seduced them and what they want from it.

They want VTOL aircraft, and for a long time. In this case, they have a desire to get something of the F-35В class, and they had such a desire and desire long before the appearance of the F-35В itself - at the beginning of the second half of the 90s. More precisely, in 1996, when they took away the prototype of the R-279V-300 engine from the exhibition, which they developed for the Soviet Yak-201 VTOL aircraft (take a look at Wiki, it will be interesting). Afterburner thrust 18 kg.s. , without afterburner - about 500 kg.s. The rotary nozzle was not sold to them then, but they did buy it back in the early 13s. Since then, the Chini people have been working on their own VTOL aircraft.
But the main problem, of course, is the engine. And he never left them. A couple of years ago, they did reach their design power, but it turned out to be a catastrophically small resource and excessive fuel consumption at maximum thrust. But they work.
By glider...
Take a closer look at their J-31 and a lot will clear up for you. Not having an engine yet, they are working out the glider of the future VTOL aircraft, installing two engines from the MiG-29 on it. So the glider in the modes of normal flight and classic takeoff / landing, they have worked out ... but this aircraft is not going into service in this guise. The money was spent, the plane turned out, work continues, but ... they are not accepted for service.
Why
Waiting for the engine.
They are going to put the same engine (only two) as for VTOL aircraft on their 5th generation fighter J-20. And with two such animals, he will really show himself in the LTH. And cruising supersonic will appear immediately. Yes, what! After all, at a non-afterburner maximum, this engine will give out thrust, like the AL-31F at maximum afterburner !! 13 000 kg.s. ... well, even if 12 kg.s.
According to the plans, China intends to build at least 10 (ten) UDC Type.075. In fact, ten aircraft carriers for VTOL aircraft of medium VI (about 40 tons). Together with 000 classical-type aircraft carriers planned for construction (6 pieces of the Liaoning type, 2 pieces of flat-deck with a conventional power plant, 2 pieces of nuclear-powered flat-deck), this will be a very serious force at sea.
That 's what they are aiming for .
They have washed up a mass of island bases in the South China Sea. It is in those parts that the UDC with VTOL aircraft on board, relying on island bases, with the support of AWACS and ASW aircraft of base aviation from island airfields, will work.
China is not "starting" now, but it is FINISHING work on its own VTOL aircraft. And since the Chinese press mentioned this, it means that there will soon be a sensation. Wangyu that it will be a VTOL aircraft with an airframe based on the J-31 and a Chinese clone of the R-279V-300 engine.

[Maxim G]

But in general, the military in different countries simply organized a boom in the development of VTOL aircraft. The Americans, the Dutch, the Italians, the French, the Germans, the British all made their mark in the VTOL effort. By the way, the French (Mirage III-V) and the Germans (VJ-101) had very interesting developments, but, as you remember, only Great Britain (Harrier) and the USSR (Yak-38) really managed to fly and fight in a meaningful way .

...


The Harrier became the star of the Great Britain-Argentina match in the Falklands/Malvinas, successfully tyrannizing the Argentine army and navy and shooting down 31 Argentine aircraft.

/
Instead of experimenting with VTOL aircraft, the French, like the USSR, Britain, and the ILC, created full-fledged aircraft for their aircraft carriers.
Harrier became a star thanks to the more modern URVV among the British than among the Argentines.

Well, etc. according to the text, however, as usual

The fact that we don’t need VTOL for nothing, and even if they pay extra, don’t go to the grandmother.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Maxim G

Harrier became a star thanks to the more modern URVV among the British than among the Argentines.

Not only. The main factor in the success of the Harrier in the Falklands was the work of the args at the limit of the combat radius. Arg fighters operating from the mainland had fuel, EMNIP, for 30 minutes of flight in the combat zone. And with such a watch time, the args simply did not have enough aircraft to clear the air and maintain air supremacy for a long time.

[maximghost]

Yatp, the Argentines were generally not particularly willing to engage in air battles. Even despite the fact that there were opportunities to lead it. Offhand, I can only remember one air battle, which was initiated at the initiative of the Argentines. Although they had the opportunity.

[mmaxx]

The Argentines did not have a special opportunity. They flew at the limit of range. There was no fuel for any maneuvers.

[maximghost]

Your comment is from the category "I heard a ringing, but I don't know where it is"

[mmaxx]

My commentary is from the magazine "Foreign Military Review" of the 80s. And everything that I read and listened to later, these articles simply supplemented with various details. Including this resource.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: maximghost

Yatp, the Argentines were generally not particularly willing to engage in air battles. Even despite the fact that there were opportunities to lead it.

The Args had no such opportunity. For I was mistaken - the time of duty at the islands for the Mirages was only 10 (ten) minutes - moreover, with PTB and in "economy mode". And the combat load is 2-3 RVV.

... the closest to the Rio Gallegas archipelago was more than 700 km from it. This circumstance had a special effect on the combat capabilities of the Mirages and Daggers not adapted for in-flight refueling. Even the use of PTB (both aircraft took two or three 1300-liter or two 1700-liter) allowed them to stay in the target area for no more than 10 minutes, and then at an economically advantageous altitude of 10000 m.

That is, one approach to the target - and that's it. If the capture is broken - there's nothing to be done, you have to leave.

[maximghost]

And the combat load is 2-3 RVV.

Yes, that's right. The British harriers also had only 2 RVVs.

The Args had no such opportunity. For I was mistaken - the time of duty at the islands for the Mirages was only 10 (ten) minutes - moreover, with the PTB and in "economy mode"

.
Yes, the time spent near the islands is extremely limited, but nevertheless, there were also the opportunity to conduct air battles. As well as air battles themselves.

That is, one approach to the target - and that's it. If the capture is broken - there's nothing to be done, you have to leave.

That, just there is some kind of air battle. This is already better than just giving the sky to the British.

[mmaxx]

Any maneuver, except for a sluggish dive, is accompanied by a drop in lift from the aircraft. This should ALWAYS be compensated by traction.
The Argentines were losing planes at sea due to lack of fuel. They didn't have enough fuel to even make a second run on the ships or organize a raid somehow smarter than an off-course attack from their own airfield.
The Argentine pilots acted simply heroically, knowing this. And sometimes knowing that you have to fall into the sea near your shore.
Do you have a car with a computer? How much is the BC showing instantaneous fuel consumption at any acceleration? It’s even ridiculous to talk about afterburner on an airplane. Look in any reference book how much the engine pours on afterburner.

[maximghost]

Take a look here:

Soon two more couples went on a mission. When the planes were over the Malvins, the information center sent them to intercept a pair of Sea Harriers that were attacking a group of Skyhawks. The British noticed a new enemy and abandoned their intentions. But then two other Britons appeared, to intercept which a pair of Mirages were immediately redirected, consisting of Mr. G. Garcia-Cuerva and an example-teniente C. Perona. The Argentines managed to build an attack from the rear hemisphere, but the British (they were Lieutenant Commander Ward and Lieutenant Watson, 801st AE) this time orientated themselves in time and quickly turned to meet them. Opponents rushed to the frontal attack. Initially, the distance between them was 25 km. Soon Garcia-Cuerva dropped the PTB and, having failed to achieve a reliable target capture, launched the R.530. The rocket went into the "milk", and the battle ended there. The parties went home.

The Daggers also began combat work. At 7.45 a.m. the Rio Grande left and headed for the Falklands, a couple consisting of Mr. Moreno and an example teniente Vol-pony. The planes carried 2 Shafrira and 3 PTBs. On the approach to the islands, the pilots received information about the approach of two Sea Harriers to Port Stanley, but they could not detect them, and rapidly declining fuel supplies forced them to leave for the base. The sorties of two more pairs of the 6th YAG ended in a similar way. However, this was only a "tip". At 15.30, a group of 9 Daggers began to leave San Julian. The troika of Mr. Dimelyo was to strike at the British ships, so each car carried two 227-kg OFABs. The remaining 3 pairs provided cover and were armed with Shafrirs. At 15.40 "Daggers" gathered in one compact group and went to the Falklands. After 15 minutes, two more planes flew out to them for reinforcements from the Rio Grande, on the pylons of which only Shafrirs and PTBs hung. However, soon one pilot turned back due to a technical malfunction, and only an example teniente J. Ardiles went on a mission.

Somewhat earlier, at 15.53, Garcia-Cuerva and Perona again took off from Rio Gallegas. This time their "Mirages" carried 2 "Mazhiks". Around 16.10 this pair, approaching from the north to about. Pebble, discovered two Sea Harriers patrolling at an altitude of 3440 m, moving on a collision course. Argentine pilots developed a simple option for a similar situation, which consisted in performing the “vertical scissors” maneuver: the Mirages were supposed to turn around, dive and go into the enemy’s tail, and then launch missiles. However, this plan looked smooth only on paper ... Perona tried to drop the PTB, but only the left one fell, and the right one remained hanging, which made piloting difficult and distracted the pilot from observing the situation. Suddenly, the pilot saw the Sea Harrier, which was on one of the sides at a distance of some 100 or 200 m. For several moments, the pilot watched him until he disappeared. Perona again began to maneuver to find the enemy, but suddenly felt a strong blow to his car. Immediately lost control, and the pilot, without hesitation, ejected. His Mirage was shot down by a Sidewinder fired by Flight Lieutenant Barton.

A few seconds later, another rocket exploded under the tail of the leading Mirage. The fuel tanks were punctured and the controls damaged. However, the possibility of piloting the machine was preserved, and Garcia-Cuerva decided not to eject, but to go to Port Stanley. At first, he dropped the tanks, which alerted the operators of the Argentine air defense radar. Then, on the approach to the airfield, the pilot fired off the rockets and finally convinced the calculations of the 35-mm machine guns that they were dealing with an attacking British aircraft. The anti-aircraft gunners no longer hesitated and instantly shot down the Mirage. Garcia Cuerva is dead. Let us note a paradoxical fact. The deceased pilot was the author of illustrations for a training manual for the Air Force, among which was a drawing with the caption: "Your life is in your hands: use the ejection seat in a timely manner!"

Around 16.40:6100 p.m., Ardiles, walking alone, was over East Falkland and received target designation for a pair of Sea Harriers approaching the island at an altitude of 10000 m from the northeast. Opponents almost simultaneously noticed each other. The Argentine, on guidance from the ground, took a position convenient for the attack and from 4,8 m went into a gentle dive. However, Ardiles did not have enough composure: without waiting for a reliable capture of the target, he launched one "Shafrir" at Lt. M. Hale's car and missed. Then Ardiles made a second mistake, which became fatal for him. At the exit from the attack, he slipped through the British fighter and went into climb in afterburner. The Dugger proved to be an excellent target for Flight Lieutenant Burton, who hit it with a missile launched from a distance of XNUMX km. Ardiles is dead.

Examples of air battles of mirages over the Falklands. They show that your inventiveness is only inventiveness.

[rotmistr60]

from the PLA turned out not only a shield that can protect the country from any problems, but also a sword that can shy away at anyone who encroaches.

What other armies should strive for, and not only in aviation. Regarding the Chinese GDP aircraft - if the Chinese decided that they needed it, then they really need it. And with their diligence, they will achieve their goal.

[spirit]

It’s necessary, China and America are preparing for a war on small islands, similar to what was between Japan and the USA. The Americans made their light tank for this, plus all sorts of landing ships and amphibians sharpen it for this. The Chinese are doing a vertical line for this. on small patches of land where you can’t especially turn around

[paul3390]

preparing for war on the small islands

Well, what kind of war can there be on small islands in modern realities? A dozen CDs with cassette heads will take everything on the island clean. You can't say meow. Where is there to put anything serious on them ...

[spirit]

Well, what kind of war can there be on small islands in modern realities?

The Chinese have a different opinion about this. If they build similar airfields, then the fortified island can turn out to be a fortress if you dig into it. There were dozens of aircraft carriers near Midway Attoll and the battle was hot and the airfield was bombed into a porridge, but this did not immediately solve the problem. So in my opinion opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the Chinese, there is still a point in this) Although a real battle will turn everything upside down, as is happening now in Ukraine. Regards

[Alexey RA]

Quote: spirit

There were dozens of aircraft carriers near Midway Attoll and the battle was hot and the airfield was bombed to the bone, but this did not immediately solve the problem.

Dozens of aircraft carriers...
There were four of them - Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu. And they did not solve the problem only because there was only one raid on the atoll - then the aircraft carriers were distracted by their colleagues from the other side. Moreover, the Yankees managed to raise the vehicles based on Midway before the Japanese strike.

If the Japanese raid were repeated, then only the infantry would remain from the forces based on Midway.

[Des]

from the article: “The only weak point of the new aircraft is the engines. The Achilles heel of all Chinese aviation. You can give a bunch of arguments, but alas, so far the Chinese aviation industry is not able to give at least something more or less similar to the AL-31F in terms of reliability. And how this problem will be solved - no one yet says.
Yes, everyone "says" that this problem will be solved by acquired operating experience, active R&D and determination. ))). And - will be resolved.

[vadimtt]

It doesn't always work that way. As an example - our uranium centrifuges. Everyone knows what it is and how it works, but to do it with the same parameters is bullshit, no matter how you fight. It's the same with the production of chips - everyone knows how it works, but here's how to do it with the same parameters - again, figs are drawn. Sometimes it happens that in the process of research (sometimes even at the very beginning) they stumble upon a set of parameters that is extremely convenient for implementation in technology, and another group of researchers (maybe even more competent) will never stumble upon this, although they will do the same . In the field of "extreme" technologies, the element of luck is quite large.

[Vadim S]

When I was in elementary school, my grandfather took me to the Yak factory, he worked there, I saw the Yak-141 standing there in the workshop, the long, angular, massive, dark gray paint made it sinister. The plant has been gone for a long time, and dozens of firms with not very efficient managers replace each other in its buildings. Apparently they are more necessary to the ruling than combat aircraft :(

[evgen1221]

For what??? He will learn how to do it in principle, why not when yes, because they are ready, training research if they build that reinforcement of helicopter carriers

[svp67]

The Yak-38 was tested in the combat conditions of Afghanistan, showed itself quite decently,

Yes, he showed himself badly there, especially at high temperatures and in the highlands. Short range, low combat load. No wonder the naval pilots nicknamed him - "Top Mast Defense Aircraft"

[maximghost]

Yes, he showed himself badly there.

He showed that he has no special advantages over the existing horizontal IS. If you read the memoirs of the head of the group, Romb Alferov, it is clear that, in accordance with the assignment, he tested both the aircraft and a shortened strip of metal panels, but nothing more than that.

No wonder the naval pilots nicknamed him - "Top Mast Defense Aircraft"

If you scratch, almost every aircraft has similar nicknames.

[Vladimir80]

It seems to me that the problem is wider, the point is not whether we need or do not need a VTOL aircraft, the problem is that we cannot produce attack drones in the right quantity, we need to start small and the most necessary ...

[uncle Vlad]

What's the catch with atolls ten meters. According to international law, if the island is ten meters away from you, then the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles around is also yours. From there, hysteria with bulk Chinese islands. This is why our Mi-8 crew received the Order of Merit when in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (it seems) they managed to see
the island is about three meters in the water.

[andrey682006]

But does it make sense to carry a pilot and systems "under a person" if it is possible to stretch a communication channel through space or repeaters? UAVs, and even with a refueling system, in my opinion look simpler, cheaper, mass character again ...

[mmaxx]

From what I read, somehow it did not appear that the Yak-38 had successfully established itself in Afghanistan.
Point by point:
1. At that heat and height, the combat radius, if I’m lying, it’s not much - 90 km.
2. Monstrous clouds of dust during takeoff and landing. In the first case, everyone knew that he was taking off. In the second, landing the car was a lottery, because the ground is not visible.
Also, from this dust, the khan came to the engines very quickly.
3. The most non-obvious. The supply of aviation at the airfield is clear and simple. There are few airfields. Everyone knows what is there and how much to bring. And these supposedly dispersed sites for VTOL aircraft, they are not known where. And how to get there for the sake of one or two planes is not clear. And taking into account the constant change of these sites, the commanders simply went berserk.
Somehow this is how it is. Moreover, any aircraft will have 2 and 3.

[Zaurbek]

I think that the Mi24 is more useful than the Yak38.

[Alex777]

Quote: Zaurbek

I think that the Mi24 is more useful than the Yak38.

100% you are right. But no one plans to reproduce the Yak-38.
And if the Yankees did not make the F-35A / B / C universal, they could
to have a completely working UVVP aircraft. It's good that he doesn't exist.

[Dmitriy22]

At the level of concept (as gymnastics for the mind): the BIPLAN scheme provides minimum takeoff / landing speeds, hence the value of GDP. Thus, an attack aircraft made according to this scheme (using all modern developments) will be able to be based on a short UDC deck, while having an unparalleled greater flight range and combat load than a helicopter. Yes, supersonic disappears, but is it really necessary?

[Vladimir80]

At the concept level (as a gymnastics for the mind): the BIPLAN scheme provides minimum takeoff / landing speeds

and the triplane (there were some) ???

[Dmitriy22]

Criticize - suggest! Although a triplane scheme is quite possible. Landing speed is even lower, cruising, in any case, more than a helicopter.

[Vladimir80]

everything has already been invented and tested for a long time - look at the militarily advanced countries, do they have biplanes in mass numbers in the troops? why all the time invent "your own special way", okay - before there was an iron curtain, it was difficult to find information - now almost everything is in open sources !!! all these "special ways" are pride and ignorance!

[Region-25.rus]

Together with the aircraft-carrying cruisers "Kyiv" and "Minsk" bought in Russia

- correction. Minsk was bought by South Korea. For several years here in Primorye he hung at anchor in one of the bays between Nakhodka and Vladivostok. But then the Koreans themselves sold "Minsk" to China. Something like this
And I personally saw "Kyiv", though from afar in Dalian (China) in 2003

[Zaurbek]

That is why many experts consider the F-35В to be a kind of conditional VTOL aircraft. But in fact, only the Harrier and the Yak-38 can be considered full-fledged vertical takeoff and landing aircraft,


In our time, the only true way to create a VTOL aircraft (if anyone needs it at all) is the F35ABC path. (A fan is there or a RD, it doesn’t matter) ... Creating a separate Yak38 is nonsense from all points of view. And the non-aircraft carrier itself is not much cheaper than a normal aircraft carrier.

[the same doctor]

For 15 years I have been writing that variable wing geometry and vertical takeoff and landing in their classic form have become obsolete. We put the third - fourth engine, remove the landing gear and sweep, leave a simple small delta wing, we even win in weight. The total thrust is higher than the weight, twice as high in the afterburner. Rocket launch and landing.
Previously, this was impossible due to the inability of the pilot to control the landing, but now (Musk proved) the electronics are doing better than the pilot.
No variable thrust vectors! For super-maneuverability and control during landing, computer control and small engines in the bow across the movement with the selection of compressed air from the engines. Gyroscopes would be nice, but I'm afraid they will be too heavy.
.
The variant with rotary engines at the ends of the wings, like the Osprey, is technically simpler, but I'm not sure if it will be suitable for supersonic.
.
With the right approach, even the electronics of the early 90s will be enough to control the landing and flight. Our then electronics!

[t7310]

Launch and landing by rocket

Four R-279V-300 and a 125mm smoothbore gun

[Knell wardenheart]

Now the niche for the attack aircraft, in principle, is decreasing, because there is a diverse range of UAVs with different methods of application, and the VTOL is even less poor. I don’t see the point in developing this product in a manned version - and if it really burns, then develop it in an unmanned version. Savings on the absence of "human stuffing" with everything attached will be significant, including savings in takeoff weight. Given the homeopathic radii of such products, their remote control will not become such an inconvenience, and individual functions can already be left to the mercy of AI, further improvement without which the UAV will soon get up in any case.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Now the niche for the attack aircraft, in principle, is decreasing, because there is a diverse range of UAVs with different methods of application, and the VTOL is even less poor.

The niche for the attack aircraft is now decreasing for another reason - a sharp saturation of the main targets of the attack aircraft with short-range air defense systems (if we consider conflicts other than zusula taming). Under these conditions, the attack aircraft, willy-nilly, has to leave work at close range - which means that armor is no longer so important, but the role of avionics is increasing, and a second crew member is desirable - an operator.
Overall stormtrooper transforms, stormtrooper transforms, stormtrooper transforms... into an ordinary multifunctional fighter with a URO. And it turns out that the Yankees, with their plans to replace the Warthogs with the Penguins, were not so wrong.

And to the share of classic attack aircraft with their brrrt or blocks of the NAR, only counterguerrilla actions remain. And that is not everywhere - in some places, even partisans can "please" the enemy with MANPADS.

[Knell wardenheart]

I mean that the UAV will cope with the same tasks better and on a budget - in the context of the fight against "slippers" it will cost much less and the park will be less gluttonous, in the context of the fight against non-slippers, the potential loss of pilots decreases, because even NWO is now visible that these are rather large losses, difficult to replace both from the point of view of people and from the point of view of technology.
In addition, the UAV is different, you can concoct something like the "Hunter", you can get rid of the "Geranium". The means of combating attack aircraft, yes, definitely spur this process, but simple economics is also of great importance here, and overall dimensions.
The drone is harder to detect, it can fly one way if necessary (that is, in fact, this is a 2x range option), a much more flexible option in choosing materials for slander, potentially greater opportunities for aerodynamic maneuvering with overloads (I emphasize - potentially), less EPR, due to its smaller size and mass, a smaller thermal footprint, more flexible placement not only at airfields, the ability to deploy production in a major war at a larger number of sites, and so on.
A lot of pluses in general. I do not think that the attack aircraft will return its relevance, although at the moment there is still a niche for it - this is a high-intensity conflict. However, their departure from the stage is inevitable and soon.

[Kostadinov]

VTOL aircraft are already in mass use - most of modern VTOL drones.
Will there be reactive VTOL UAVs - I think they will.

[engineer74]

Quote: Kostadinov

VTOL aircraft are already in mass use - most of modern VTOL drones.
Will there be reactive VTOL UAVs - I think they will.

And why should a jet UAV carry a vertical take-off on itself?
You can launch it from a catapult or an accelerator - a hundred or two G is not critical for an UAV ...
Yes, and vertical landing too: from arrester to parachute and soft landing engines - to choose from

[sergeyketonov]

Novel. Good afternoon. Great article. but as always ! The Harrier has a vertical takeoff and vertical landing range of 91 km. With a short takeoff and landing - 460 km with a load - 2 bombs of 1000 pounds each and two Sidewinder missiles

[Pete mitchell]

Quote from sergeyketonov

Novel. Good afternoon. Gorgeous article….

Author for perseverance solid "five", but I often ask myself - where does he find the source materials? Comprehension - well, not the strongest side, or the purpose of the submission is different.
Speaking of Harrier - well, you can’t not indicate the modification, well, you can’t - you need to understand what we are talking about. Those who took part in the Falklands conflict, FRS.1 and GR.3, are not even FRS.2, and even more so not 8+, a machine that participated in many conflicts and proved its characteristics by using a considerable range of ASP. By the way, it is still used in Italy, Spain…, in Britain the last course for retraining was “crammed”, it seems in '14 - all the cadets were “thrown off”, and they started flying…., why? - other story.
38th - there is no sadder story in the world than a story about desire and results. Well, the very modest results of Operation Rhombus, more than modest. Well, they just printed one machine and changed the angle of inclination of the lifting engines.
Do I need a VTOL aircraft, I think yes. Come in handy. But first you need a concept…. Yes, I am a supporter of long-term plans

[yavar]

انگلیسی روی مالویناس گذاشته اند. لطفا از همان نام مالویناس استفاده کنید.

[TermNachTer]

They already have UDCs and are still building them, there is a temptation to use them as light aircraft carriers, with a lack of normal ones. If they take the Yak-141 + modern technologies as a basis, perhaps something intelligible will come out.

[AC130 Gunship]

Yak38 did not show itself in any way. From the word at all. The combat radius was less than 400 km, it burned 2/3 of all fuel for takeoff and landing, there was no radar or guided missiles. What the hell is Afghanistan? Nursami pulnul a couple of times "somewhere forward." There, in the sea, sailors repainted the numbers on them so that they seemed "thicker and longer." It was rather a technology demonstrator, which was riveted by several hundred

[ecolog]

to develop an aircraft with pre-low performance characteristics for the sake of one single feature is a so-so idea. And here it will also be needed only to return control of Taiwan, which is at hand.

[David1993]

And why is the turntable not for you? Amers accelerated their experimental rotorcraft to 500 km.h

[David1993]

And why is the turntable not for you? Amers accelerated their experimental rotorcraft to 500 km.h
I’ll tell you even more, for 90% of the tasks (which today are the battles of barmaley and their tamnets), the capabilities of propeller-driven aircraft are enough. It remains only to pump them with modern electronics

[Eug]

Oops... will anyone believe that China bought the R-79V-300 without a rotary nozzle? And one more thing - how does the author propose to pave the "jump sites" as close as possible to the LBS? I suspect that the appearance of a road train loaded with a rather thick steel sheet in the area close to the LBS will be a very characteristic reconnaissance sign ....

[75 Sergey]

A VTOL aircraft is a highly specialized vehicle - it does not fly far or for long.