Would the Yak-141 been better for Soviet/Russ carrier air ops than MiG-29K? India too

the Kiev group outside norway would have been an invaluable bubble from which Tu-22 could fling at iceland,
and the kiev in turn backed up by land based air in norway and kola.
at least thats how i did it in harpoon 97 🙂

I’m not quite sure I’m following there Mauro?.

Doenitz’s U-boat campaign had much to admire….even Chester Nimitz, Doenitz claimed, offered his professional respects after the war. I’m not sure you have to introduce any outside context when the topic is purely strategy and doctrine. Likewise its hard to see what Russian, principally coastal, WW2 submarine operations had in common with an Atlantic ‘sea denial’ strategy such as that Gorshkov evolved?.

Those air defense missions were intended not only to protect both the surface and submarine fleets from Soviet Union, but also to protect the AV-MF and VVS ground-based long-range aircraft’s of attack and patrol.

Which AV-MF and DA regiments were these Mauro?. The Kola-based Tu-22Ms were tasked with sea denial over the Barents and in the Norwegian Sea approaches….Backfires ranging over the Atlantic was largely a Tom Clancy fantasy.

The Ul’Yanovsk and her Yak-44’s were never built so cooperative air tactics were never developed to the best of my knowledge. I would be fascinated to hear more about a bomber escort mission planned for a Soviet naval airgroup. By the time that Ul’Yanovsk would have been taking shape as a unit it would have already been clear that the active element of Legenda had been a failure and, as such, the coordination of airborne heavy anti-surface strikes….many hours from bases of operation….would have been massively challenging.

Oceanic anticarrier was always considered, to the best of my knowledge, a submarine tasking…which was why the 650mm TT’s and Pr949’s came about. The Backfires were supposed to clobber CVBG’s trying to take up SIOP stations a fair bit closer to home.

In the case the MiG 29K from India could have been refueled in air the Su 30MKI equipped with the Bhramos missiles as well as to provide escort of these in the final phase of its attack missions, or to escort the P 8 Poseidon in its missions.

MiG-29K has a recovery tanking capacity. It can offload enough to give a fighter a few more goes at getting onto the deck after some misses, but, its not a support refueler as far as I was aware?. Whats the maximum weight it can get off the deck with including the buddy gear?

Therefore for these escort missions the STOLV Yak 141 could have been restricted both in range and air-to-air capabilities to face an adversary equipped with fighters like the former F 14 Tomcat or the current models in use today.

I agree here definitely. If you had a fast launch DLI capability like STOBAR offers and fastjet types that can offer long endurance on light load BARCAP sorties you dont have to have STOVL. YAK-141 did offer a capability no-one else had at the time though. Supersonic, BVR, all-weather off a STOVL deck. All they needed was to come up with their own slant on Principe de Austrias or the US VSS concepts from the late 70’s and they’d have been able to package hull plus, rotary and fastjet, airgroup for enough of a ‘pocket sea control’ capability that a few states would’ve tripped over themselves for a look at. I remember wondering around 2000ish why they’d never done it….still no idea today!.

Well elaborate analysis, but I guess that Admiral Sergei Gorshkov was not a great admirer from Kreigsmarines, just only a studious of this matter, once he had developed the doctrine using in large scale the lessons from Soviet Navy itself during World War II too.

It shall be interesting to add another great difference between the concept of the US or Western Aircraft carriers in relation of the Soviets like Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes, since the latters did not has anti-submarine aircraft such as S 3 Vicking as well as electronic warfare EA-6 Power or bomber A 6 Intruder.

The Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes would have not been equipping with anti-submarine, anti-ship or attacks aircraft’s like the US aircraft carriers, instead with highly emphasis in air defence fighters like the Su 27K and even the MiG 29K. Those air defense missions were intended not only to protect both the surface and submarine fleets from Soviet Union, but also to protect the AV-MF and VVS ground-based long-range aircraft’s of attack and patrol.

The Su 27K (Su 33) and MiG 29K from aircraft carriers Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes could have been used to provide escort for attack aircraft like the Tu 22M3 from AV-MF and VVS , as well as the ASW / ASuW Tu 142 Bear from AV- MF in the end phase of its mission, while it could be in the range of fighter like the former F 14 Tomcat or other fighters has been located on land bases.

In this case the Soviet aircraft carriers would have been positioned themselves to provide the escort of the Tu 22M3 for anti-ship or ground attack, as well as for the Tu 142 Bear in the anti submarine attack or designation of targets for anti-ship attack, but in the same way the soviet aircraft carrier should have been kept as far away as possible from the opponent’s forces both in sea or land.

Once the opponent’s attack capabilities has been nullified or weakened by strikes from Tu 22M3 like surface task group, in this case as example of an aircraft carrier had been damaged by Kh 22 missiles launched by the Tu 22M3 that were escorted by the Su 27K or MiG 29K, but the aircraft carrier still sailing, then the soviet task force could approach and launch a massive attack with long range missiles like the P 700 Granit( SS-N-19) to sink the damaged aircraft carriers and the escort ships of this enemy task group.

In the case the MiG 29K from India could have been refueled in air the Su 30MKI equipped with the Bhramos missiles as well as to provide escort of these in the final phase of its attack missions, or to escort the P 8 Poseidon in its missions.

Therefore for these escort missions the STOLV Yak 141 could have been restricted both in range and air-to-air capabilities to face an adversary equipped with fighters like the former F 14 Tomcat or the current models in use today.

Still there are at least three simple questions very hard to answer about the former planned Ulyanovsk nuclear powered aircraft carrier ( Project 11437) even today

This ties into doctrine. What the carrier was supposed to actually be there to do.

The Soviet era carrier conops was vastly different to the American one and very much narrower in scope. Sergei Gorshkov was an admirer of the Kreigsmarines Atlantic U-boat campaign. His view was that submarines were going to be the weapon that would sever the US head from the European body in a future European theatre conflict. He took the lesson of the Atlantic campaign to heart as well insofar as MPA’s and roving ‘Johnny Walker’ ASW surface escort groups would be a murderous threat for his submarines.

The job of his surface fleet then was to storm into the Atlantic basin…take up a position in the middle of it astride the NATO sea lanes and beat down on any ASW groups/aircraft that came within range of the long range surface-surface missiles or area SAMs of his group. Wide area surveillance to be provided by the Legenda satellite groups and by the Uspekh system from the MarPat Bears and specialised Kamov choppers in the group. Antiair coverage would be down to the promised highly powerful Mars-Passat phased arrays on the carriers….as the air targets were expected to be high level MPA’s. The Yak-38’s….similar to the FRS1 Sea Harriers….were embarked principally to engage MPA air targets that remained stubbornly out of SAM range. The point being to react to any threats that developed to his submarines and to, defacto, establish a safe zone for them to operate in.

Ul’Yanovsk modified this concept….but only to a point. The doctrine and mission was still the same but the Falklands lesson of the futility of relying on surface radar and the ability, shown by the Argentines, to localise an emitting opponent and make a low level approach undetected forced a shift. Yak then upped the ante on shipborne AEW culminating in the Yak-44 mock ups and the carrier platform needed to provide a way to get these into the air. Hence waist cats.

The mission of the fastjets was still fleet air defence primarily and skijump was still quite sufficient to the task of getting air-air loaded fighters up with sufficient fuel for very long endurance CAPs. Short of a full US CVN opposition its hard to see what NATO surface/air platform would have been able to go up against it from a mid-Atlantic position. With aerial radar support, against HARM and Harpoon missile laden A-7’s and Hornets, they would likely have had a good shot at keeping local air dominance….at least until USN F-14’s could make a telling contribution.

Even then the Ul’Yanovsk group would be tying up a full US CVBG which is stopping it being elsewhere, like on SIOP tasking, and its suddenly then pulled into range of friendly submarines with anticarrier tasking….that also listen on Legenda and Uspekh frequencies.

Fascinating concept anyway.

KGB: All of this nozzle talk is beside the point. Regardless. The weight, size and mission scope of the Yak 141 is very similar to the F -35’s.

KGB, while the size and weight may be “similar”, the mission scope is quite different as others point out. The 141 was designed a fleet defense fighter. The F-35B as an advanced multi role aircraft with stealth and world beating sensors and fusion capabilities. Configuration and main engine similar, supplemental vertical lift took different concepts (jets vs. fan). The F-35B has more wing area and significantly higher maximum weight.

All of this nozzle talk is beside the point. Regardless. The weight, size and mission scope of the Yak 141 is very similar to the F -35’s.

That’s too far fetched, IMHO. It shares similarities with the carrier version of F-35 because it’s a mid-size fighter, one generation apart. Thus the weight, size and the basic operational strategy, but the mission scope is quite wider for the F-35. Simply being ‘5th gen’ means that you carry so much more technology (avionics) and you should be theoretically able to perform a wider variety of tasks more efficiently.

… The weight, size and mission scope of the Yak 141 is very similar to the F -35’s.

That’s one of the jokes of the week !!!

Then choose the words more carefully – they’re SIMILAR in their general triple-section swivel configuration, but F135 nozzle ISN’T a COPY of R79 nozzle.

All of this nozzle talk is beside the point. Regardless. The weight, size and mission scope of the Yak 141 is very similar to the F -35’s.

When exactly? In the 60’s and 70’s they had no money for it (and thus went for the smaller Kiev class in the end), in the 80’s they finally started building one and never finished it as they went bankrupt.

It’s certainly questionable if such a complex project would have been successful given the lack of experience and the issues some of their ships had, e.g. with propulsion systems.

When ? When they were beating the US in the space race.

The nozzles of the engines are identical! Therefore, the power loss in these nozzles are close! That’s all I wanted to say

Then choose the words more carefully – they’re SIMILAR in their general triple-section swivel configuration, but F135 nozzle ISN’T a COPY of R79 nozzle.

When exactly? In the 60’s and 70’s they had no money for it (and thus went for the smaller Kiev class in the end), in the 80’s they finally started building one and never finished it as they went bankrupt.

It’s certainly questionable if such a complex project would have been successful given the lack of experience and the issues some of their ships had, e.g. with propulsion systems.

The Ulyanovsk nuclear powered aircraft carrier ( Project 11437) should have been equipped to launch 4 aircraft’s simultaneously like: 2 aircraft’s with catapults in the angle deck and 2 aircraft through the ski jump in the bow of the ship.

About the soviet aircraft carrier classes were quite different concepts in several aspects when it has been compared with western aircraft carriers CATOBAR an even the STOBAR. About the soviet aircraft carrier as : Kiev ( Project 1143), Kuznetsov ( Project 11435 ) and Ulyanovsk ( Project 11437) it had been designed with high emphasis in the weapons embarked like the Battle Cruiser ( Kirov and Slava classes).

Both Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk (at least it was planned for the same) it has been equipped with 12 SS-N-19 ( P 700 Granit), while the legacy Kiev class with 08 SS-N-12 ( P 500 Bazalt). Those heavy missiles were capable to reach targets at long range with supersonic cruise speeds, even at sea level in the end phase of the flight.

Probably such strong reason for Kuznetsov class were equipped with ski jump ramps instead catapults, the Ulyanovsk had been planed with only 02 instead 04 catapults,it could be the launching devices for those 12 missiles SS-N-19 in these ships.

Then it had been resulted that weren’t just possible to install the catapults system in the bow of those ships, since the necessary space in the bow of this ships for the catapult devices should be occupied by those 12 larger SS-N-19,after all each SS-N-19 has been measuring 7.000 kg or 15.400 lb of mass.

Indeed the Yak 141 would have been appreciated very well the ski jump ramps of the Kuzentsov and Ulyanovsk classes, just remember the Yak 38 had been tested with ski jumps ramps in the Zhukovskiy in the early 80’s with satisfactory results.

Still there are at least three simple questions very hard to answer about the former planned Ulyanovsk nuclear powered aircraft carrier ( Project 11437) even today:

As far I know in Crimea it has not been mentioned these catapult facilities were built in this place, or even in another place in the former Soviet Union.

Indeed, the former Soviet Union were bankrupt in the 80’s, but it were nothing new, once the Soviet Union had been bankrupted since the early 1920. The problem were that all Soviet leader didn’t listen about this financial collapse from former Soviet Union because there weren’t soviet bankers to tell about this issue.

Ok, here is a quote from book by P.Butowski: “Vertical thrust of R-79 engines with reaction control puffers (end of wingtips and tailbooms) is 137.3kN (14000kG) and after considering loses – 122.6kN (12500kG)”

The nozzle F135 – a copy of the nozzle engine R-79
Afterburner thrust engine 17876 kgs (vertical mode) / 19507 kgs = 0.92 – a loss of power.
R-79 15500 kgs * 0.92 = 14260 kgs

The nozzles of the engines are identical! Therefore, the power loss in these nozzles are close! That’s all I wanted to say

Read what I wrote again. I’m starting to doubt your adequacy

You wrote Rolls-Royce nozzle is a COPY while it’s NOT. Yeah, now say something (out of your @$$) about adequacy again.

The nozzle F135 – a copy of the nozzle engine R-79

Read what I wrote again. I’m starting to doubt your adequacy

The nozzle F135 – a copy of the nozzle engine R-79

Шурик, завязывай с этими сказками про родину слонов. Не поверю, что Флатерик не просвещал тебя насчет того факта, что впервые трехсекционное поворотное сопло было разработано Роллс-Ройсом для движка под немецкую вертикалку VJ101.

Enough of these fairy-tales.

Meaning it is implied that the USSR did not have the technical savvy/capability to build catapult supercarriers when in fact they did. They just elected not to go that route.

When exactly? In the 60’s and 70’s they had no money for it (and thus went for the smaller Kiev class in the end), in the 80’s they finally started building one and never finished it as they went bankrupt.

It’s certainly questionable if such a complex project would have been successful given the lack of experience and the issues some of their ships had, e.g. with propulsion systems.

Meaning what exactly? 50 years ago, UK decided to replace their “proper” carriers with the new Invincible class operating Harriers which were pretty similar in concept and mission to the Kiev class. Now they will have a bigger class operating VSTOL F-35B, while the Soviets were planning towards catapult equipped carriers (the Ulyanovsk class).

Meaning it is implied that the USSR did not have the technical savvy/capability to build catapult supercarriers when in fact they did. They just elected not to go that route.

The USSR specifically shelved plans for catapult super carriers for VSTOL oriented carriers. It was called project Orel. But then they split the difference with the Kuznetsov class. Funny how 40 years later, the UK is doing what the USSR planned to all along.

Meaning what exactly? 50 years ago, UK decided to replace their “proper” carriers with the new Invincible class operating Harriers which were pretty similar in concept and mission to the Kiev class. Now they will have a bigger class operating VSTOL F-35B, while the Soviets were planning towards catapult equipped carriers (the Ulyanovsk class).

I’d be amazed (but happy I love the looks of the design) if the Yak 141 had a better range than the Mig29k

There are absolutely areas where its performance would/would have beaten the various maritime Harriers

IF (and I do not have any data to hand to tell me yay or nay) it could launch and land like the Harrier then the ability to conduct air ops in horrible conditions would have been far better than the Mig. That may have made it the better alternative for the USSR all by itself. For India I’m not so sure.

The USSR specifically shelved plans for catapult super carriers for VSTOL oriented carriers. It was called project Orel. But then they split the difference with the Kuznetsov class. Funny how 40 years later, the UK is doing what the USSR planned to all along.

I’d be amazed (but happy I love the looks of the design) if the Yak 141 had a better range than the Mig29k

There are absolutely areas where its performance would/would have beaten the various maritime Harriers

IF (and I do not have any data to hand to tell me yay or nay) it could launch and land like the Harrier then the ability to conduct air ops in horrible conditions would have been far better than the Mig. That may have made it the better alternative for the USSR all by itself. For India I’m not so sure.