"VTOL aircraft: past, present, future"
Khramov Maxim Anatolievich
Work plan.
Introduction.
What is a VTOL aircraft?
Past VTOL.
Real VTOL
Estimated future of VTOL aircraft.
Conclusion.
Introduction.
We used to think that planes must take off, accelerating along the runway. But history knows many designs of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (for brevity they are called VTOL aircraft). But only the British Harrier and its modifications became really massive. I set a goal - in this work to talk about the development of VTOL aircraft in the past and to determine the likely paths for the development of VTOL aircraft over the next 30-40 years (sixth generation).
What is a VTOL aircraft?To begin with, I want to clarify what a VTOL Aircraft is. By this term, I mean an aircraft with engines located in the fuselage and equipped with a thrust vector control system that allows it to take off or land vertically, but at the same time does not deprive it of the ability to take off like a normal aircraft from the runway. Machines of this type appeared only in the 50s, although before that there were projects for vertically taking off aircraft, but they were not implemented due to the complexity of the design. Traditional VTOL aircraft include the Harrier, Yak-38, which have gained distribution, and the Yak-141 and F-35B, which have not received distribution. These machines had their drawbacks and their advantages.
Why did he appear?
The need for VTOL aircraft of the type I defined it appeared in the 50s and 60s,when the USSR was preparing for hostilities in Europe. American strategists logically assumed that in the event of a war, the airfields would be quickly disabled or, worse, captured. air defensetook overpart of the tasks to counter Soviet aviation,helicopters also took on some of the tasks of supporting troops during the retreat (the Bundeswehr could not withstand superior forces Soviet army), but they were too imperfect for that, too slow, too fragile, too weakly armed. Therefore, an aircraft was required to support troops on the battlefield, and at the same time, to counter aircraft. The problem was fueled by the exactingness of the then fighters to the length and quality of the runways. Another way to use such aircraft could be installation on aircraft carriers laid down during the war,because due to their small size, aircraft carriers could not take modern carrier-based fighters. The task was set and the work began.
Past VTOL aircraft
The first production VTOL aircraft and the only one that actually took part in hostilities (Falklands War) was the Harrier. It appeared thanks to the unique Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine, which had not one, but four nozzles at once, spaced symmetrically on different sides, this minimized the “dead weight” of vertical take-off landing systems, but the nozzles were installed, and, accordingly, the engine had to be in the center of mass , very close to the cockpit. Thanks to its engine, the aircraft could use helicopter techniques in air combat, which saved it more than once, but made additional demands on the pilot. Theoretically, with the proper development of the motor and the improvement of aerodynamics, it would be quite possible to obtain supersonic speed.
Domestic VTOL aircraft were designed at first simply as a response to Western ones, without a clear goal, but as a result they were used. VTOL intended to be used as carrier-based aircraft. Domestic VTOL aircraft Yak-38 and Yak-141 had a different system for obtaining verticality than the Harrier, they were equipped with three engines: two lifting and one lifting and marching, only their power differed. Despite the absence of fundamental differences, the aircraft turned out to be very different, both in terms of characteristics and in appearance. The speed, range, payload on the Yak-141 were many times greater than on the Yak-38, which, due to its short range, even received the nickname "fore mast defense aircraft." This was due to the low thrust-to-weight ratio of the Yak-38 and the general underdevelopment of the aircraft, which, in fact, was an experimental machine and was created as a transitional stage for working out the infrastructure and piloting techniques. It is with the lack of piloting experience that most accidents are associated. But the Yak-141 was not the pinnacle of progress for domestic VTOL aircraft; the Yak-43 project was worked out on its basis. There is little information about this aircraft, but it is known that it was planned to install the NK-25 bomber engine with a thrust of 25,000 kgf or R134-300 with a thrust of 17,000 kgf. But one thing is known for certain - it was supposed to be an aircraft using technologies to reduce radar visibility. This aircraft was supposed to be the most advanced VTOL aircraft.
The present vertical takeoff and landing aircraft
But perestroika and the collapse that followed Soviet Union handed over the banner of progress in this area to the United States, where at that time a new defense program JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) appeared. Under this program, which provided for the creation of a single fighter for the army, navy and marine corps, two prototypes were presented: the X-35 from Lockheed Martin and the X-32 from Boeing. The Boeing prototype was a development of the ideas laid down in the Harrier and, in my opinion, was more progressive. But due to a weaker engine, he lost to the prototype from Lockhod Martin, which received the F-35 index. The F-35 is basically a cross between the Yak-141, F-22 Raptor and a development of the earlier F-24 design. From the Yak-141, he took the idea of a propulsion system, an engine with a nozzle rotated in a vertical plane and an additional motor. Separately, I want to say about the rotors rotating in different directions, on the Yak this was done to compensate for the gyroscopic moment. From the F-22 Raptor, he took the tail. From F-24 nose with air intakes and cockpit. The trapezoidal wing was new. There were three different versions: F-35B for the Marine Corps to replace the AV-8B Harrier II, F-35A for the Air Force to replace the F-16 and F-35C, for the Navy to replace the F / A-18. The F-35B differed from all in its smallest dimensions and weight, as well as the presence of a lifting impeller. Instead of lift motors, as on the Yak-141, it has an impeller driven by a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine, the most powerful fighter aircraft.
In my subjective opinion, the future of VTOL aircraft is very vague, they simply have no use. A fifth-generation VTOL aircraft has now been developed to meet the needs of the military. But since the development of the latest and most advanced F-35B VTOL aircraft cost the Pentagon over $ 56 billion, and also due to a decrease in the US military budget by $ 500 billion, the development of the sixth generation VTOL aircraft in the United States remains a big question. Russia is another matter. We have great experience in the development of VTOL aircraft. In addition, we are increasing the military budget and, hopefully, in the future Russia will start developing the sixth generation of VTOL aircraft.
First, II think that the future belongs to twin-engine VTOL aircraft. Most classic VTOL aircraft such as F-35, Harrier, Yak-141 have one engine. One engine is nice because it weighs less than two and consumes less fuel, but it also adds to the problem. To provide the necessary thrust-to-weight ratio, either the aircraft must be light, or the engine must be very powerful . And since aircraft are becoming heavier and heavier over time, it is necessary to install two engines on VTOL aircraft. In addition, two engines are twice as likely that in the event of a failure or damage by a rocket, projectile, bird, in the end, the plane will be able to return to the airfield.Secondly, the problem arises - what kind of engine will it be? A single propulsion engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Pegasus on the Harrier and the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 on the Boeing X-32, minimizes the weight of the VTOL equipment, but since the lift nozzles must be placed at the center of gravity, the engine you have to do it either with sustainer nozzles placed outside the fuselage contours, which negatively affects aerodynamics, EPR, gas flow rate from nozzles, and so on, or make the engine long or the aircraft short in order to bring the jet stream to the nozzle located in the tail.
F119-PW-100(SE614) Rolls-Royce Pegasus
Divided into, in fact, two different engines, the propulsion system like the Pratt & Whitney F135-400 on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and R79V-300 + 2xRD-41 on the Yak-141 removes some of the restrictions on the length of the aircraft. The price for this is that the aircraft has to carry an almost useless elevating propulsion system for the entire flight, which in the case of the F-35 forces the aircraft to be made wider, and in the case of the Yak-141 forces it to carry additional fuel with it.
Yak-141 lift-and-fly engine
The choice of engine also depends on the purpose of the aircraft. For an attack aircraft, survivability, unpretentiousness, and reliability are important.
For fighter thrust, low fuel consumption. Therefore, depending on the purpose of the VTOL aircraft, the engine may be different.
Attack aircraft need an engine similar to the Rolls-Royce Pegasus, which provides high maneuverability and does not take up large volumes.For a fighter, a split propulsion system should be chosen, as it will provide a lower EPR, as well as a greater thrust-to-weight ratio.
The main task of the attack aircraft with vertical takeoff will be to support amphibious assaults. It will be based on universal landing ships. The VTOL fighter will be based on light aircraft carriers and perform all the same functions as a standard carrier-based fighter on supercarriers.
Conclusions.
In the course of my work, I reviewed the history and prospects of VTOL aircraft and believe that they will fly in the 21st century, because VTOL aircraft can perform tasks that neither airplanes, due to their attachment to runways, nor helicopters due to them limited speed. Unfortunately, so far an insurmountable obstacle to the development of VTOL aircraft, from a technical point of view, is the colossal fuel consumption in takeoff modes. But as technology advances, this shortcoming can be overcome. And, probably, there will come a moment when VTOL aircraft will replace helicopters, as they are too slow, and aircraft, as they require complex infrastructure, and form a single class of aircraft of the future.
Sources of information
E.I. Ruzhitsky. European VTOL aircraft. - Moscow. Astel AST. 2000 pp. 20-44; 105-108; 144-150.
Encyclopedia for children. Technique. Publishing house "Avanta" 2005. p.566; 574; 585-586; 593
http:/ /ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8_Harrier_II
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-38
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-36
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Harrier_II
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/x35.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/harrgr1.html
The 5th generation F-35 B fighter-bomber is equipped with a separate engine for vertical takeoff and landing.
According to the layout
The history of the creation and development of VTOL aircraft
The development of VVP aircraft began for the first time in the 1950s, when the appropriate technical level of turbojet and turboprop engine building was reached, which caused widespread interest in this type of aircraft both among potential military users and in design bureaus. A significant impetus in favor of the development of VTOL aircraft was also the widespread use in the air forces of various countries of high-speed jet fighters with high take-off and landing speeds. Such combat aircraft required long paved runways: it was obvious that in the event of large-scale hostilities, a significant part of these airfields, especially front-line ones, would be quickly disabled by the enemy. Thus, military customers were interested in aircraft taking off and landing vertically on any small area, that is, virtually independent of airfields. To a large extent, due to such interest of representatives of the army and navy of the leading world powers, dozens of experimental aircraft of different systems were created. Most of the structures were made in 1-2 copies, which, as a rule, suffered accidents already during the first tests, and further research was not carried out on them. The NATO Technical Commission, which announced in June 1961 the requirements for a vertical take-off and landing fighter-bomber, thereby gave impetus to the development of supersonic GDP aircraft in Western countries. It was assumed that in the 1960s and 70s, NATO countries would need about 5,000 such aircraft, of which the first would enter service as early as 1967. The forecast of such a large number of products caused the emergence of six projects of aircraft VVP:
- P.1150 the English company Hawker-Siddley and the West German Focke-Wulf;
- VJ-101 West German Southern Association "EWR-Süd" ("Belkov", "Heinkel", "Messerschmitt");
- D-24 the Dutch company Fokker and the American Republican;
- G-95 Italian firm "Fiat";
- Mirage III V French company "Dassault";
- F-104G in the GDP variant of the American firm Lockheed, together with the British firms Short and Rolls-Royce.
After all the projects were approved, a competition was to be held in which, from all the proposed ones, they had to choose best project to launch into mass production, however, even before the projects were submitted for the competition, it became clear that it would not take place. It turned out that each state has its own, different concept of the future aircraft and will not agree to the monopoly of one firm or group of firms. For example, the British military did not support their own firms, but the French project, the FRG supported the Lockheed project, and so on. However, the final drop was France, which announced that, regardless of the results of the competition, they would work on their Mirage III V aircraft project.
Political, technical and tactical problems influenced the change in the concept of the NATO commission, which developed new requirements. The creation of multi-purpose aircraft began. In this situation, only two of the submitted projects have passed the stage preliminary design: the Mirage III V aircraft, funded by the French government, and the VJ-101C aircraft, funded by West German industry. These aircraft were made respectively in 3 and 2 copies and were tested (4 of them died in accidents) until 1966 and 1971. In 1971, by order of the US Naval Aviation Command, work began on the third supersonic VVP aircraft in Western countries - the American XFV-12A.
As a result, only the created and produced VTOL Sea Harrier was actively and successfully used, incl. during the Falklands War. A modern VTOL development is the American F-35, a fifth-generation fighter. In the development of the F-35 as a VTOL aircraft, Lockhead Martin applied a number of technological solutions implemented in the Yak-141.
VTOL program in the USSR and Russia
Advantages and disadvantages of VTOL aircraft
The history of the development of VVP aircraft shows that until now they have been created almost exclusively for military aviation. The advantages of VTOL aircraft for military use are obvious. The aircraft of the GDP can be based on sites, the dimensions of which are not much larger than its dimensions. In addition to the ability to take off and land vertically, VTOL aircraft have additional advantages, namely the ability to hover, turn in this position and fly in a lateral direction, depending on the propulsion system and control system used. In relation to other vertically taking off aircraft - for example, helicopters - VTOL aircraft have incomparably greater, up to supersonic (Yak-141) speeds and, in general, the advantages inherent in fixed-wing aircraft. All this led to the enthusiasm for the idea of a vertically taking off aircraft, a kind of “VTOL boom” in the engineering and design and aviation fields in general in the 1960s and 1970s.
A wide distribution of this type of aircraft was predicted, many projects were proposed for military and civil, combat, transport and passenger VTOL aircraft of various designs (a typical example of the VTOL passenger liner project for the 70s is the Hawker Siddeley HS-141).
However, the disadvantages of VTOL aircraft also turned out to be significant. Piloting this type of machine is very difficult for a pilot and requires him to be highly skilled in piloting technique. This especially affects hovering and transitional modes in flight - at the moments of transition from hovering to level flight and back. In fact, the pilot of a jet VTOL aircraft must transfer the lift force, and, accordingly, the weight of the machine - from the wing to the vertical gas thrust jets or vice versa.
This feature of the piloting technique puts challenging tasks in front of the VTOL pilot. In addition, in hovering and transient modes, VTOL aircraft are generally unstable, subject to side slip, and a possible failure of lifting engines is a great danger at these moments. Such a failure often caused accidents in serial and experimental VTOL aircraft. Also, the disadvantages include the significantly lower payload and flight range of the VTOL aircraft compared to conventional aircraft, the high fuel consumption in vertical flight modes, the overall complexity and high cost of the VTOL aircraft design, and the destruction of runway surfaces by hot gas engine exhaust.
These factors, as well as a sharp increase in world market prices for oil (and, accordingly, aviation fuel) in the 70s of the 20th century led to the practical cessation of development in the field of passenger and transport jet VTOL aircraft.
Of the many proposed jet transport VTOL projects, only one was practically completed and tested [ ] aircraft Dornier Do 31, however, this machine was not mass-produced either. Based on the foregoing, the prospects for extensive development and mass use of jet VTOL aircraft are very doubtful. At the same time, there is a modern design trend towards a departure from the traditional jet scheme in favor of VTOL aircraft with a propeller group (more often tiltrotor planes): in particular, these machines include the Bell V-22 Osprey, which is currently being mass-produced and is being developed on its basis.
VTOL amphibious aircraft VVA-14Strange design in the photo? And this is exactly what he is, or rather what is left of him.
Since the mid-1950s, the USSR began the process of forming anti-submarine aviation - a new kind of force designed specifically for operations against submarines. The aviation of the Navy had solved similar problems before, but in connection with the creation of nuclear submarines in the United States, the fight against the threat from the depths of the sea came to the fore. Nuclear power plants fundamentally changed the conditions and nature of the armed struggle at sea. Submarines have become submarines in the full sense of the word. The use of nuclear energy has opened up almost unlimited possibilities for increasing the cruising range under full underwater speed. New long-range homing torpedoes and ballistic missiles have immeasurably increased the strike capabilities of nuclear submarines, which now largely determine the power of the fleet.
With the entry into combat patrols in the early 60s of American nuclear submarines armed with Polaris ballistic missiles, the USSR found itself practically defenseless. Submerged boats approached our coast, could at any moment launch a missile salvo, inflict colossal destruction and escape invulnerable. All this required an immediate and effective response. The fight against nuclear submarines in order to prevent nuclear missile strikes is becoming one of the priority tasks assigned to the Navy. In this regard, the role and importance of ASW aviation, capable of carrying out effective fight with enemy submarines.
The “big anti-submarine direction” in the development of the Russian Navy made it possible to make an attempt to realize in metal such a revolutionary and unique aircraft as the VVA-14 vertical takeoff and landing amphibian.
VVA-14 was supposed to become part of an aviation anti-submarine complex consisting of the aircraft itself, the Burevestnik search and sighting system, anti-submarine weapons and an afloat refueling system. The complex was designed to detect and destroy enemy submarines located in areas remote from the place of departure by 1200-1500 km, both independently and in cooperation with other forces and means of the Navy.
VVA-14 could be used in search-strike, search and shock versions. It was necessary to design and build three copies of the machine with the start of factory testing of the first in the last quarter of 1968.
Design Bureau Bartini did not have its own pilot production, so the construction of the VVA-14 was planned to be carried out at the pilot plant ╧938 of the OKB N.I. Kamov. But since the Kamovites did not have specialists familiar with the specifics of heavy aircraft construction, in 1968 R.L. Bartini becomes the chief designer on the VVA-14 theme of the newly created design bureau at the Taganrog plant ╧86. V.I. is appointed as Bartini's deputy. Biryulin.
At the same time, the decision of the commission of the presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on military-industrial issues No. 305 of November 20, 1968 and the order of the MAP No. 422 of December 25, 1968 on the development of a technical design for the VVA-14 aircraft at the Taganrog Machine-Building Plant were issued.
The task set turned out to be too difficult for the new design bureau, and in 1970 a decision was made with the help of A.K. Konstantinov to develop design documentation and create prototypes of vertically taking off vehicles. R.L. Bartini became the Chief Designer on the VVA-14 theme, N.D. Leonov, equipment Yu.A. Bondarev.
In fact, the work on the creation of the VVA-14 was supervised by the deputy chief designer N.A. Pogorelov, who replaced V.I. Biryulina, because R.L. Bartini lived in Moscow and visited Taganrog from time to time.
VVA-14 was a whole collection of unusual technical solutions, each of which required a large amount of development work even before the start of flight tests. For the purpose of full-scale testing of aircraft systems and structural elements, several corresponding stands were designed and built.
To test the power plant on a small pontoon stand built at the Ukhtomsk Helicopter Plant (UVZ), experimental work on the study of the depression and the spray torch formed by the impact on the water surface of the jet of gases of the TRD TS-12M.
To study the modes of takeoff and landing VVA-14 on various surfaces At UVZ, a floating gas-dynamic stand-analogue 1410 was created, which made it possible to test an aircraft model on a scale of 1: 4, equipped with six TS-12M turbojet engines that simulated the operation of all lifting engines of the aircraft.
Stand 1410 was transported to the test and experimental base of the Design Bureau in Gelendzhik, where it underwent a full cycle of tests to study the modes of takeoff and landing of the aircraft on the water surface. The results obtained testified, in particular, that the forces and moments acting on the aircraft during vertical takeoff and landing were insignificant and the aircraft stabilization and control system could well parry them. Combined gas-jet rudders for heading and pitch control were also tested on the ground stand. To test the control of the VVA-14, two flight stands were created: with a movable and fixed cockpit. On the flight stands, even before the first flight, the aircraft control modes were thoroughly worked out, among which was the landing mode under conditions of intense dynamic air cushion. Test pilot Yu.M. was often invited to the stands. Kupriyanov, who highly appreciated the work of their creators, saying at the debriefing of the first flight: “They flew like on a simulator!”
It was planned to build three experienced VVA-14. Two copies of the aircraft, the 1M and 2M machines, were launched simultaneously into production. The first prototype 1M aircraft was made without lifting engines and was intended for testing and fine-tuning aerodynamics and design in all flight modes, except for vertical takeoff and landing, stability studies and controllability in these modes, for testing the marching power plant and aircraft systems. To ensure takeoff and landing from the airfield, a bicycle chassis with steerable nose wheels was installed on the aircraft (racks from 3M and Tu-22 bombers were used in the chassis design).
The second experimental machine "2M" was supposed to receive lifting engines. It was supposed to study and work out transient modes and modes of vertical takeoff and landing from land and water, lifting power plant, jet control systems, automation and other systems associated with vertical takeoff and landing. After working out the main technical issues on "1M" and "2M" it was the turn of the third copy of the VVA-14. Complexes of special equipment and weapons were to be tested on it, as well as combat use was worked out. Aircraft were manufactured in cooperation between the pilot production of the Design Bureau (plant director A. Samodelkov) and the neighboring serial plant (Taganrog Mechanical Plant named after G. Dimitrov, director S. Golovin). At the serial plant, the fuselage, wing consoles and plumage were manufactured, and the assembly, installation of aircraft systems and control and recording equipment was carried out by the pilot production of the Design Bureau.
By the summer of 1972, the main work on the assembly of the VVA-14 ("1M") aircraft was completed and the machine that left the assembly shop was handed over to the LIK for final fine-tuning before flight tests. The VVA-14 had very unusual view. The fuselage with the cockpit passed into the center section, on the sides of which there were two huge compartments with floats and their pressurization system. Spaced swept horizontal and vertical tail. Detachable parts of the wing were attached to the caisson of the center section. For the originality of the design, the aircraft received the nickname "Fantômas." I.K. became the lead test engineer. Vinokurov, test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov, test navigator L.F. Kuznetsov.
The parking lot, where the VVA-14 was located, was located on the edge of the airfield near a small grove, the so-called. “quarantine”, and for the purposes of conspiracy, “1M” received the civil registration USSR-19172 and the symbols of “Aeroflot” on board. In the period from July 12 to 14, 1972, the first taxiing and jogging of the aircraft began along the unpaved runway of the factory airfield. Then, the wing consoles and tail unit were undocked from the VVA-14 and, observing all the required secrecy measures, one night they were transported to the neighboring Taganrog airfield, which had a concrete strip, on which one of the training regiments of the Yeisk Military Pilot School was based. There, from 10 to 12 August, the runs continued. Their results were encouraging, the VVA-14 behaved normally on runs up to a speed of 230 km / h, the power plant and on-board equipment worked without comment. In his report, test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov noted that: "During the takeoff run, approach and run, the aircraft is stable, controllable, there is no departure from the takeoff course and no heels." In addition, attention is drawn to good review from the cockpit and convenient location flight and navigation instruments and control devices for the power plant.
For the first time, the VVA-14 took off on September 4, 1972 with a crew consisting of test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov and test navigator L.F. Kuznetsova. The flight, which lasted almost an hour, showed that the stability and controllability of the machine in the air was within the normal range and no worse than that of traditional aircraft. As on the ground, the VVA-14 looked very unusual in the air, having received from below (central nose-fuselage and two side compartments) one more nickname - "Snake Gorynych". Be-30 (╧05 "OS") was involved in separate flights as an escort aircraft and a reference aircraft for calibrating flight and navigation equipment. Flight tests of the first stage were completed by the summer of 1973. Their results confirmed that the original aerodynamic configuration with a the center section is quite viable, and the propulsion power plant and the main systems work reliably and ensure the performance of test flights. But the most significant result of this stage of flight tests was that under the aircraft when flying near the ground, the thickness of the dynamic air cushion turned out to be much larger in relation to the average aerodynamic chord wings than previously thought. With an average aerodynamic chord VVA-14 of 10.75 m, the effect of a dynamic cushion was felt from a height of 10-12 m, and at the leveling height (about 8 m) the cushion was already so dense and stable that Yu.M. Kupriyanov, during the debriefing, many times asked for permission to drop the control stick and let the car sit down by itself. True, he was not allowed to conduct such an experiment, fearing that the runway might simply not be enough.
The only serious incident was the failure of the hydraulic system ╧1 in the first flight. The reason was the destruction of the outlet pipe working fluid from pumps, due to the coincidence of the oscillations of the fuselage with the frequency of the pulsation of the liquid. They found a way out by replacing the tubes with rubber hoses. Although the prospects for obtaining real, and not "paper" lift engines remained very uncertain, finally, a pneumatic take-off and landing device (PVPU) was ready. The PVPU floats had a length of 14 m, a diameter of 2.5 m, and the volume of each was 50 m3. They were designed by the Dolgoprudnensky design bureau of units and manufactured at the Yaroslavl tire plant. Therefore, the winter of 1973-74. VVA-14 ("1M") was held in the experimental production shop of the design bureau, where PVPU systems and devices were installed on it. At the same time, static tests were carried out on a specially prepared float. The floats were released by twelve controlled pneumatic annular ejectors - one for each float compartment. High-pressure air was taken from the compressors of the propulsion engines. The cleaning of the PVPU was carried out by hydraulic cylinders, which acted through the longitudinal rods on the cables covering the floats, displacing air from their compartments through the pressure reducing valves.
The floats and the system for their cleaning and release were literally crammed with various unique devices and systems, so it turned out to be very difficult to fine-tune and adjust, which lasted all the spring and part of the summer of 1974. Then the VVA-14 test phase began afloat. Since the landing gear was in the retracted position all the time during sea trials, special rolling carts were made to lower and raise the machine with inflated floats. First of all, the unsinkability of the aircraft was checked when the float compartments were depressurized. The release of pressure from two compartments of one float confirmed that VVA-14 retains normal buoyancy. Then came the turn of taxiing with a gradual increase in the speed of movement through the water. Tests have shown that the maximum speed should not exceed 35 km / h. At high speeds, the car began to lower its nose to the surface of the water and there was a danger of deformation and subsequent destruction of soft floats. But for a vertically taking off amphibian, this speed was quite enough.
At the end of the stage of sea trials, test flights continued for the time being with the PVPU floats retracted. However, by this time, the customer's interest in the VVA-14 had noticeably faded. The main attention was paid to the improvement of the Be-12, Il-38 and Tu-142 that had already entered service. It became finally clear that lifting engines with acceptable characteristics would not exist even in the distant future. Therefore, even in the midst of the installation and testing of PVPU R.L. Bartini decided to modify the "1M" into an apparatus of the type of an ekranoplan with air blowing from additional engines under the center section. The work begun in this direction led to the creation of an experimental 14M1P ekranolet, but its testing began already without Bartini. In December 1974, Robert Ludovikovich died. Flight tests, by inertia, continued in 1975. It was necessary to test the PVPU and the behavior of the machine with floats released in flight. Previously, a series of runs and approaches were carried out with a gradual increase in the degree of release of the floats (for this, the aircraft's hydraulic system was modified accordingly). Kupriyanov and L.F. Kuznetsova. In total, in the period from June 11 to June 27, in test flights, 11 releases-cleanings of the PVPU were performed. The issued floats did not cause any special problems in the behavior of the machine in the air. The shaking of the aircraft with inflated floats with the flaps extended, which was revealed during the tests, “as when jogging along the dirt strip,” according to the pilots, was not dangerous and could be eliminated by changing the shape of the tail parts of the floats. All attempts by the aircraft to scour with the PVPU released were steadily parried by the SAU-M automatic control system. These flights became the final chord in the history of the VVA-14. In total, from September 1972 to June 1975, 107 flights were performed on the 1M machine with a flight time of more than 103 hours.
After the termination of the VVA-14 program, the 1M aircraft was rolled into the workshop for conversion into an experimental 14M1P ekranolet, the assembled airframe of the 2M machine was taken to the far edge of the factory parking lot, the third copy of the vertically taking off amphibian was never started. there were projects to create modifications for various purposes. The ship version would have folding wing panels and tail and could be based on project 1123 anti-submarine cruisers, specially equipped large-capacity dry cargo ships and tankers, or on VVA-14 anti-submarine carrier cruisers. In the transport version, VVA-14 could to transport 32 people or 5000 kg of cargo over a distance of up to 3300 km. In the search and rescue version, two rescuers and a doctor were additionally included in the amphibious crew. The cargo compartment housed special equipment (boats, rafts, winch, etc.). The flight characteristics of the VVA-14 in the rescue version remained practically the same as those of the anti-submarine aircraft, with the exception of the flight range, which could be increased by 500-1000 km.
In the version of the repeater aircraft for the VVA-14, it was planned to develop a special antenna and a system for lifting it to a height of 200-300 m, while the vehicle was afloat. at a distance of at least 200 km from the aircraft. In this version, the amphibian carried one air-to-surface missile weighing 3000-4000 kg, up to 9.5 m long and 700-780 mm in caliber in the lower part of the fuselage and a radar rangefinder on the keel. In addition, an infrared direction finder and a panoramic radar were installed in this version. All these works did not leave the initial stage of consideration of technical proposals and study of the issue by the customer. But in general, the efforts expended were not in vain. As a result of the tests, rich experimental material was obtained, and the work on the VVA-14 itself became an excellent school for OKB specialists.
The design of the VTOL aircraft is made according to the scheme of a high-wing aircraft with a composite wing of a bearing center section and consoles with spaced horizontal and vertical tail and a float take-off and landing device. The design is mainly made of aluminum alloys with anti-corrosion coating and cadmium steels. The fuselage is semi-monocoque, turning into a center section. In the bow there is a three-seat cockpit, detachable in emergency situations and providing crew rescue in all flight modes without the use of ejection seats. Behind the cabin there is a power plant compartment with 12 lifting engines and an armament compartment. The wing consists of a rectangular center section and detachable parts (POTS) of a trapezoidal shape in plan with a transverse angle V +2╟ and a wedging 1╟, formed by profiles with a relative thickness of 0.12. On the OCHK there are slats, single-slotted flaps and ailerons throughout the span. Cigar-shaped fairings are mated with the center section, on which the plumage and PVPU are placed. The plumage is cantilever, located on the fairings, swept. The horizontal tail with a total area of 21.8 m2 has a leading edge sweep of 40╟, equipped with elevators with a total area of 6.33 m2. The two-keel vertical tail unit with a total area of 22.75 m2 has a leading edge sweep of 54╟, the total area of the rudders is 6.75 m2. The pneumatic takeoff and landing device includes inflatable floats 14 m long, 2.5 m in diameter and 50 m have 12 compartments. For the release and cleaning of the floats, a complex mechanohydropneumoelectric system with 12 annular injectors (one for each compartment) is used. Air is supplied to the system from the compressors of the propulsion engines. For transportation of the aircraft on the ground, a retractable tricycle wheeled landing gear with a nose leg and main legs on the fairings on the sides of the floats is provided, each leg has two wheels. The chassis of the serial Tu-22 was used. The power plant is combined, it consists of two mid-flight engines D-30M with a thrust of 6800 kgf each (general designer P.A. Solovyov), installed side by side in separate gondolas on top of the center section, and 12 lifting turbofan engines RD-36 -35PR with a thrust of 4400 kgf each (chief designer P.A. Kolosov), installed in pairs with an inclination forward in the fuselage compartment with air intake doors opening upwards for each pair of engines and lower doors with grilles, the deviation of which could be adjusted. Lifting engines were not brought to the beginning of flight tests, and the aircraft flights were carried out without them. It was planned to use an auxiliary power unit with a turbocharger. The fuel system includes 14 tanks; two compartment tanks and 12 sealed tanks with a total capacity of 15,500 liters. It was planned to install an afloat refueling system.
The control system provided control of aerodynamic rudders using hydraulic boosters, as on conventional aircraft, and control in vertical takeoff and landing modes and transitional modes was to be carried out using 12 jet rudders installed in pairs and using compressed air taken from lifting engines. The automatic control system provides pitch, heading and altitude stabilization in all flight modes. Aircraft systems. The aircraft is equipped with all the necessary systems for operation: fire-fighting in the power plant compartments, anti-icing with hot air supply to the wing tips, plumage and air intakes, there is an oxygen system and an air conditioning system. Equipment. The aircraft was equipped with flight-navigation and radio communication equipment necessary for flight tests and provided for the use of the latest equipment to ensure automatic stabilization during take-off and landing and on the route for autonomous flight in difficult meteorological conditions. In the rescue version, the VTOL was supposed to be equipped with emergency radio equipment. On the anti-submarine VTOL aircraft, it was supposed to use the Burevestnik search and aiming system, which provides a search for submarines and determines the coordinates and necessary data for the use of weapons. To detect submarines, it was supposed to use 144 RGB-1U radio-acoustic buoys and up to a hundred explosive sound sources, as well as a search aeromagnetometer ╚Bor-1╩. Armament. In the anti-submarine version, it was supposed to place various weapons with a total weight of up to 2000 kg in the bomb bay: 2 aircraft torpedoes or 8 aircraft mines IGMD-500 (with an increase in combat load to 4000 kg) or 16 PLAB-250 aircraft bombs. For defense on the patrol route, a defensive complex was envisaged to provide active and passive jamming.
| LTH: |
| Modification | VVA-14 |
| Wingspan, m | 28.50 |
| Length, m | 25.97 |
| Height, m | 6.79 |
| Wing area, m2 | 217.72 |
| Weight, kg | |
| empty plane | 35356 |
| maximum takeoff | 52000 |
| fuel | 14000 |
| engine's type | |
| marching | 2 DTRD D-30M |
| lifting | 12 RDRD RD36-35PR |
| Thrust, kgf | |
| marching | 2 x 6800 |
| lifting | 12 x 4400 |
| Maximum speed, km/h | 760 |
| Cruise speed, km/h | 640 |
| Loitering speed, km/h | 360 |
| Practical range, km | 2450 |
| Patrol duration, h | 2.25 |
| Practical ceiling, m | 10000 |
| Crew, people | 3 |
| Armament: | combat load - 2000 kg (maximum - 4000 kg), 2 aircraft torpedoes or 8 aircraft mines IGMD-500 (with an increase in combat load to 4000 kg) or 16 aircraft bombs PLAB-250. |
Let's say a little about the design of floats and systems for their cleaning and release.
PVPU floats had a length of 14 m, a diameter of 2.5 m. The volume of each was 50 m. They were designed by the Dolgoprudny Design Bureau of Units (DKBA) and manufactured by the Yaroslavl tire workers.
The PVPU cleaning-release system turned out to be very difficult in fine-tuning and setting up tests, since this mechanohydropneumoelectric complex incorporated various unique specialized devices, the full-scale laboratory testing of which, for the most part, turned out to be unfulfilled in terms of timing, and even in terms of technology (actual floats, their drive systems and management).
To test the PVPU, it was necessary to supply a large amount of active air during the release (filling) from the simulator of the compressors of sustainer engines. We got out of the situation by designing and manufacturing a filter station that cleaned high-pressure air supplied from the factory pneumatic network. The release of floats was carried out by twelve controlled pneumatic annular ejectors - one for each float compartment.
The process began with the opening of the locks of the harvesting hydraulic cylinders, which, when released, played the role of dampers, providing the resistance of the shell with cables covering the floats. Excess air to maintain a constant maximum overpressure in the floats was released into the atmosphere through pressure reducing valves. In the mode of operation "exhaust - cleaning PVPU" excess pressure was provided in the range of 0.15 ... 0.25 MPa, or (0.015 ... 0.025) atm.
After complete shaping, upon the signal of the released position, the controlled ejector switched to the mode of supplying active air without mixing it with the atmospheric one - the "booster" mode. Upon reaching a pressure of (1.5 ... 2.5) MPa (or 0.15 ... 0.25 atm), the ejector was automatically closed by an overpressure signal of "0.2 kgf / cm" and periodically turned on to "boost" when the pressure decreased in the float due to air cooling or leakage. The maximum overpressure was limited by switching the pressure reducing valve to a pressure of 3.5 + 0.5 MPa (0.35 + 0.05 atm).
Air was supplied to the "boost" during the release from the compressor of sustainer engines, and in the parking lot and during vertical flight - from the high-pressure pneumatic system or from the compressor of the auxiliary power plant TA-6. In an airplane flight, atmospheric air was additionally supplied from special air intakes.
The cleaning of the PVPU was carried out by sufficiently powerful hydraulic cylinders, which acted through the longitudinal rods on the cables covering the floats, displacing air from the compartments through the mentioned pressure reducing valves. They switched to the "release - cleaning of the PVPU" mode (0th locks opened from the outside by pneumatic cylinders.
The floats and the complex of their drive and control systems were literally crammed with inventions, which, like all inventors, were given with great difficulty and the desire to search for something new, warmed up by R. Bartini, but by all means! — optimal solution. Here are two examples.
The first. The operating load from the float cleaning mechanism, overcome by powerful hydraulic cylinders, was 14 tons and was spring-loaded, independent of the stroke (900 mm). In the retracted position, the piston was fixed by a collet lock of the cylinder, which, when the floats were released, was supposed to open first. Everyone understands: if you push the door, loading the lock, it is much more difficult to open it than if you remove the distortions and springing of the door by hand, and then open the free lock.
So, the assumption about the possibility of jamming of collet locks loaded with great effort when opening them was “brilliantly” confirmed in the laboratory after three openings of the lock under load. What to do? Then the common solution with door lock was transferred to the PVPU system: before opening the lock, pressure was first applied to the cleaning of the floats, the lock was unloaded, it was opened from the outside, after which the cleaning signal was removed, and the released piston freely went to the outlet.
Second example. The ejector air supply to the float compartments during the release ensured its reduced temperature. However, when filling up to a pressure of maximum work capacity of 0.2 atm (“booster”), hot air from the turbojet compressors was supplied to the float compartments through a special ejector channel and there was a possibility of accelerated aging and cracking of the elastic shell of the floats in the ejector installation area.
To prevent this danger, the end of the hot air outlet channel was equipped with a special divider, in the design of which, as in miniature, the tasks known from the field of supersonic aircraft air intakes were solved - the channels provided for the fight against shocks, cold air suction, etc.
The "Achilles heel" of modern military aviation is airfields. Even not so much they as runways (runways). The most sophisticated combat aircraft of the latest generation will become useless if the enemy destroys it. Any modern army has a dozen means to carry out such an operation. The above is especially true for front-line aviation.
But there is a very simple solution to this problem: to make sure that the plane does not need the runway at all. It's about about vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, which are capable of flying into the sky literally from a tiny patch of land.
Thoughts on creating such aircraft visited designers for a long time, the development of VTOL aircraft projects began shortly after the beginning of the aviation era. But technical capabilities did not allow engineers to make their dreams come true.
The first Soviet VTOL aircraft was the Yak-36, which flew into the air in 1966. The continuation of this project was the serial Yak-38.
The development of VTOL aircraft was more successful in the UK. Already in 1960, Hawker created a prototype aircraft that could make a vertical takeoff. One of the main components of the success of this project was the creation by Rolls-Royce of a unique engine capable of developing 3,600 kilograms of thrust into four rotary nozzles, which ensured the take-off of the car. In 1969, the VTOL Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.1 was adopted by the RAF. Today, the Harrier is already several generations of combat aircraft that are in service with a number of countries (including England and the USA) that participated in hostilities and have high flight performance.
In the USSR, the fate of vertical take-off and landing aircraft is closely connected with the development of the program (project 1143) for the construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers - ships that had both missile and aircraft weapons.
Back in the mid-70s, the development of a carrier-based VTOL fighter capable of protecting a ship from enemy air raids began. The experience of creating "verticals" in the USSR was only in the Yakovlev Design Bureau, and this experience cannot be called too positive.
The Yak-38, adopted by the Soviet Navy, had a very low thrust-to-weight ratio and was equipped with three engines at once. The designers had to lighten the car as much as possible, they even removed the onboard radar from it. The engines did not want to work synchronously; in the conditions of southern latitudes, they simply did not start. The aircraft could only take on board small-caliber bombs and unguided rockets, which reduced its combat value to almost zero. These planes have had accidents all the time.
In addition, in order to reduce the takeoff weight, the Yak-38 was forced to take a limited supply of fuel, which significantly reduced its range.
The project to create a new Yak-141 VTOL aircraft for the needs of the fleet began in 1975. State tests were scheduled for 1982. The new aircraft was conceived as a supersonic fighter, initially it was planned to be equipped with a single engine, but later preference was given to an aircraft with a combined power plant.
The Yak-141 aircraft was supposed to enter service with the aircraft-carrying cruisers (TAKR) Baku, Ulyanovsk, Riga and Tbilisi. It was also planned to equip the Minsk and Kyiv aircraft carriers with a new fighter after the modernization of these ships. The Yak-141 was supposed to replace the outdated and unsuccessful Yak-38.
The power plant consisted of three engines: two lifting RD-41 and one lifting and marching R-79. The operation of the power plant was controlled by electronics, it could provide the Yak-141 with a vertical or short takeoff from the ship's deck.
In 1980, the military slightly changed their requirements for the future aircraft: it must become multi-purpose - capable of not only destroying air targets, but also striking ships and ground targets of the enemy. That is, to perform the functions of an attack aircraft.
Due to problems with the engines, the tests of the Yak-141 were constantly postponed. They only started in 1987, and by 1990 four prototype fighters had been built. Full tests of takeoff and landing on the ship's deck took place in September 1991. During the testing period, 12 world records for speed and load capacity were set. During testing, one of the aircraft crashed. The pilot ejected, but the car was beyond repair. The cause of the accident was pilot error.
This aircraft became not only an important stage in the development of the domestic aircraft industry, but also a landmark aircraft in the history of world aviation - the first vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that broke the sound barrier. It should be noted that the Yak-141 is capable of taking off vertically at full combat load.
This plane was very unlucky, it appeared at the very moment when a huge country was already living out its last months, and the economy was falling into the abyss. Having a bitter experience in operating the Yak-38, the military treated the "vertical" with great distrust. Not the least role in the inglorious end of this promising project was played by the accident of the Yak-141 during testing. There was no money to continue work on this very promising aircraft in 1992.
In the Yakovlev Design Bureau, projects were created for two more VTOL aircraft: the Yak-43 and Yak-201, but they remained on paper. The developers tried to offer new car foreign buyers, but there were no orders. There was a short cooperation with the Americans (Lockheed Martin), but it also ended in vain.
In 2003, the Yak-141 fighter project was officially closed.
Description
The Yak-141 is a high-wing aircraft, it is made according to the normal aerodynamic scheme and is equipped with a combined power plant. 26% of the aircraft fuselage is made of composite materials, some of the elements are made of titanium-based heat-resistant alloys. The case is actively used aluminum-lithium alloys with less weight.
The fuselage of the aircraft is a semi-monocoque type with a rectangular section. The lift-and-flight engine is located in its tail section, two more lifting ones are in the bow, directly behind the cockpit. The nose of the fuselage has a pointed shape.
The wings are trapezoidal in shape, high-lying with a straight sweep and root influxes. The wing is designed in such a way that the aircraft can reach supersonic speeds, conduct maneuverable air combat and carry out long cruising flight.
Tail - two-keel, consists of rudders and all-moving stabilizers. It is attached to two outriggers, between which there is a nozzle of the lift-and-flight engine.
Air intakes rectangular shape, they are located immediately behind the cockpit. The air flow is controlled by a horizontal wedge.
The landing gear is tricycle, it is able to withstand the fall of the aircraft from a height of five meters.
The Yak-141 power plant includes two lifting engines (PD) RD-41 and one march-lifting (PMD) R-79. Also, during maneuvers during vertical takeoff, jet rudders are used, which are powered by a lift-and-flight engine. In its design, the Yak-141 is close to the modern American VTOL F-35B, which is also equipped with a combined power plant.
Lift engines RD-41 are located in front of the aircraft, in a special compartment, just behind the cockpit. During level flight or in the parking lot, the engines are closed with special shutters at the top and bottom. During takeoff or landing, they open, providing air to the engines and opening the nozzles. The motors are mounted at an angle of 10° to the vertical, the nozzles can deviate by ±12.5° vertically from the motor axis. RD-41 is a single-circuit, single-shaft turbojet engine, it can operate at a speed not exceeding 550 km/h.
The R79V-300 lift-and-fly engine is a bypass turbojet engine with an afterburner and a variable thrust vector. It is located at the rear of the aircraft body. The rotors of this engine rotate in different directions, the compressors are distinguished by increased gas-dynamic stability, and unique swirl burners are located in the combustion chamber. The engine nozzle is swivel, with an adjustable sectional area, it can deflect the thrust vector by 95°. The maximum thrust of the R79V-300 afterburner is 15,500 kgf.
The Yak-141 can take off in three different ways: vertically, with a short takeoff run, and with slippage (ultra-short takeoff). The main engine nozzle during vertical takeoff deviates to the maximum angle; during takeoff with a short takeoff run and slippage, it is 65 °. When taking off with slippage, the takeoff run is six meters.
If you have any questions - leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them.
MOSCOW, 15 Dec— RIA Novosti, Vadim Saranov. One of the most expensive "toys" of the Pentagon - the F-35B fighter-bomber - this week took part in a joint US-Japanese exercise aimed at cooling the DPRK's nuclear missile fervor. Despite the wave of criticism of the concept of vertical takeoff used in the aircraft, the need to resume production of aircraft of this class has recently been increasingly discussed in Russia. In particular, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov recently announced plans to build aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). About why Russia needs such an aircraft and whether the aviation industry has enough strength to create it - in the material of RIA Novosti.
The Yak-38, which was put into service in August 1977, became the most massive domestic combat aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing. The car has earned an ambiguous reputation among aviators - out of 231 aircraft built, 49 crashed in accidents and aviation incidents.
The State Duma told about the fate of the grouping of the Navy off the coast of Syria after the withdrawal of troopsAccording to the representative of the parliamentary group on Syria, Dmitry Belik, the composition of the group will not change, now it includes more than 10 ships and vessels, including those armed with Caliber.The main operator of the aircraft was the Navy - the Yak-38 was based on the project 1143 aircraft-carrying cruisers "Kyiv", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk" and "Baku". As veterans of carrier-based aviation recall, the high accident rate forced the command to drastically reduce the number of training flights, and the flying time of the Yak-38 pilots was a symbolic figure for those times - no more than 40 hours a year. As a result, there was not a single first-class pilot in the regiments of naval aviation, only a few had a second-class flight qualification.
The combat characteristics were also dubious - due to the lack of an onboard radar station, he could only conditionally conduct air battles. The use of the Yak-38 as a pure attack aircraft looked inefficient, since the combat radius during vertical takeoff was only 195 kilometers, and even less in a hot climate.
The more advanced Yak-141 was supposed to replace the "difficult child", but after the collapse of the USSR, interest in it disappeared. As you can see, the domestic experience in the creation and operation of VTOL aircraft cannot be called successful. Why did the topic of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft become relevant again?
Naval character
“Such a machine is vital not only to the Navy, but also to the Air Force,” military expert, Captain First Rank Konstantin Sivkov told RIA Novosti. “The main problem of modern aviation is that a jet fighter needs a good runway ", and there are very few such airfields, it is quite simple to destroy them with a first strike. Vertical take-off aircraft in a threatened period can be dispersed even over forest clearings. Such a system of using combat aviation will have exceptional combat stability."
However, not everyone sees the expediency of using VTOL aircraft in the land version as justified. One of the main problems is that during vertical takeoff the aircraft consumes a lot of fuel, which severely limits its combat radius. Russia, on the other hand, is a large country, so fighter aviation must have "long arms" to achieve air supremacy.
"The performance of combat missions of fighter aircraft in the conditions of a partially destroyed airfield infrastructure can be ensured by a shortened take-off of conventional aircraft from a strip section less than 500 meters long," Oleg Panteleev, executive director of the Aviaport agency, believes. "Another question is that Russia has plans for the construction aircraft carrier fleet, here the use of vertically taking off aircraft will be most rational. These may not necessarily be aircraft carriers, these may also be aircraft-carrying cruisers with the lowest cost parameters. "
By the way, the F-35B today is a purely naval vehicle, its main customer is the US Marine Corps (the aircraft will be based on landing ships). British F-35Bs will form the basis of the air wing of the newest aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, which was recently commissioned.
At the same time, according to Konstantin Sivkov, in order to start work on creating a Russian analogue of the F-35B, Russian design bureaus do not have to wait for new aircraft carriers. "VTOL aircraft can be based not only on aircraft carriers. For example, a tanker is equipped with a ramp and becomes a kind of aircraft carrier, we had such projects in Soviet times. In addition, VTOL aircraft can be used from warships capable of receiving helicopters, for example, from frigates," our interlocutor said.
We can if we want
Meanwhile, it is obvious that the creation of a Russian vertically taking off aircraft will require impressive resources and funds. According to various estimates, the cost of developing the F-35B and its horizontal takeoff counterparts has already reached $1.3 trillion, and several states participated in the creation of the machine at once.
According to experts, in order to produce a machine comparable in performance to the F-35B, it will be necessary to solve a number of serious tasks: the miniaturization of avionics, the creation of a new generation of on-board systems and the design of an airframe with special characteristics. The Russian aviation industry has opportunities for this, especially since many systems can be unified with the fifth-generation Su-57 aircraft. At the same time, the engine of the machine can become one of the most labor-intensive nodes.
"The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 ceased to exist. If any documentation on the rotary nozzle, including the afterburner, is probably still preserved, then people with practical experience in creating such components and assemblies, most likely, can no longer be found. Here at We have probably lost our competencies,” Oleg Panteleev believes, “In general, I believe that the aviation industry will be able to give a worthy response in the form of a viable VTOL project if the customer, represented by the Ministry of Defense, decides on the aircraft carrier fleet and its aviation component.”
Russia will be able to start building aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future. According to the Ministry of Defense, in 2025-2030, the laying of the heavy aircraft carrier of project 23000 Storm is expected. By that time, the Russian Navy intends to receive two new Priboy amphibious assault ships capable of carrying VTOL aircraft.
