Revamped Navies
- Thread starter stormbind
- Start date
Russian VTOL fighters
Yakovlev Yak-36 demonstrator first hovered in 1961. The Yak-38 fighter flew in 1971. The Yak-41 VTOL fighter aircraft achieved Mach 1.7 in 1987. An upgraded Yak-43 VTOL fighter is currently on the design sheets as a future maybe.
Yakovlev Yak-36 demonstrator first hovered in 1961. The Yak-38 fighter flew in 1971. The Yak-41 VTOL fighter aircraft achieved Mach 1.7 in 1987. An upgraded Yak-43 VTOL fighter is currently on the design sheets as a future maybe.
British VTOL fighters
P.1227 VTOL demonstrator first flew in 1961. Main VTOL project (forgot name) succumbed to defense reviews in 1960s. Remnants: Siddeley Kestrel prototype flew in 1964. Siddeley Harrier first flew in 1967 and entered service 1969. Varients exported to USA, India, Italy, Spain, and one varient is built under license in the USA.
British VTOL experience resulted in discovering the newer VIFFing technology (Vectoring In Forward Flight), which is demonstrated in the Harrier-series and used to outmaneuver a hostile aircraft or other inbound weapon.
P.1227 VTOL demonstrator first flew in 1961. Main VTOL project (forgot name) succumbed to defense reviews in 1960s. Remnants: Siddeley Kestrel prototype flew in 1964. Siddeley Harrier first flew in 1967 and entered service 1969. Varients exported to USA, India, Italy, Spain, and one varient is built under license in the USA.
British VTOL experience resulted in discovering the newer VIFFing technology (Vectoring In Forward Flight), which is demonstrated in the Harrier-series and used to outmaneuver a hostile aircraft or other inbound weapon.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never made a specific reference to the harrier or the jsf. I said that any given aircraft made at tech level X will be faster if it is made in a conventional as opposed to vtol format. So the harrier was slower than the conventional aircraft built in its day, and the vtol jsf will be slower than the conventional aircraft that come out at the same time. Why do you insist on believing I am comparing the harrier to modern aircraft?
You're only knocking down strawmen when you do this kind of debating. Please stop it, it is unbecoming of a serious poster.
You're only knocking down strawmen when you do this kind of debating. Please stop it, it is unbecoming of a serious poster.
You are being ignorant and ignoring the fundamentals of military decisions.
If VTOL was inferior, why are all the most powerful nations of the world investing in it? I have asked before and you refuse to answer!
I can give an answer. I have explained why VTOL is superior, and I have given imperical evidence to show that VTOL is not inherently slower. It is your turn to answer something!
If VTOL was inferior, why are all the most powerful nations of the world investing in it? I have asked before and you refuse to answer!
I can give an answer. I have explained why VTOL is superior, and I have given imperical evidence to show that VTOL is not inherently slower. It is your turn to answer something!
Nate1976
Just Plain Wierd
Isn't this thread supposed to be about navy? I mean, ships and stuff?
I like your ideas, stormbind. If it matters, we're talking about planes now.
And everyone knows all planes hover on top of the cities and can't move.
I like your ideas, stormbind. If it matters, we're talking about planes now.
And everyone knows all planes hover on top of the cities and can't move.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said vtol tech had disadvantages that made it inferior in every way. I was highlighting the fact that it will never replace existing technology. I can certainly see a role for vtol alongside conventional aircraft, but I think the roles it can effectively/efficiently be used in are quite specialised.
Most of the roles for which vtol is suited, can be done more efficiently by either standard fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft, depending on the role being considered. To me, teh primary advantage of vtol is that it can perform in either role reasonably well, and so allows the military to maintain one aircraft instead of two.
So if I were to make a serious attempt at implementing vtol...
We need some way to reflect the higher maintenance (fuel consumption), and also their shorter range.
Upgrading cruisers (or whatever) to vtol carriers shouldnt be an automatic feature. There are (potentially at least) many possible roles into which cruiser class ships can be specialised into, carrier being just one. Id like to see a system in which players could choose from a small shortlist of possible upgrade choices.
Most of the roles for which vtol is suited, can be done more efficiently by either standard fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft, depending on the role being considered. To me, teh primary advantage of vtol is that it can perform in either role reasonably well, and so allows the military to maintain one aircraft instead of two.
So if I were to make a serious attempt at implementing vtol...
We need some way to reflect the higher maintenance (fuel consumption), and also their shorter range.
Upgrading cruisers (or whatever) to vtol carriers shouldnt be an automatic feature. There are (potentially at least) many possible roles into which cruiser class ships can be specialised into, carrier being just one. Id like to see a system in which players could choose from a small shortlist of possible upgrade choices.
I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I am trying to get answers 
The thing is, existing VTOL carriers are not specialist! Through-Deck Carriers perform the following tasks:
1. Anti-Submarine warfare (Sea King Helicopter)
2. Fleet Defense (Sea Harrier)
3. Amphibious Landings (Marines)
4. Air Strike (GR9 & JSF)
5. Special Ops (Commandos & Helicopters)
This is all in one small (20k ton) ship, which is self-sufficient and can operate anywhere. It is not the most powerful ship at sea. It is not specialist, but it does appear to be the most adaptable and oportunist solution.
Before VTOL, the same ship could do only half those things, and would require escorting by more specialist ships! VTOL changed everything, and reduced costs at the same time...
The thing is, existing VTOL carriers are not specialist! Through-Deck Carriers perform the following tasks:
1. Anti-Submarine warfare (Sea King Helicopter)
2. Fleet Defense (Sea Harrier)
3. Amphibious Landings (Marines)
4. Air Strike (GR9 & JSF)
5. Special Ops (Commandos & Helicopters)
This is all in one small (20k ton) ship, which is self-sufficient and can operate anywhere. It is not the most powerful ship at sea. It is not specialist, but it does appear to be the most adaptable and oportunist solution.
Before VTOL, the same ship could do only half those things, and would require escorting by more specialist ships! VTOL changed everything, and reduced costs at the same time...
I accept that VTOL has shorter range, but when deployed as STOVL I am not sure the same is true. All VTOL fighters (in the real world) are deployed as STOVL.
The JSF uses the same technology but will be STOVL only: It's vertical thrusters are not powerful enough to achieve VTOL.
VTOL was originally planned (UK, US, USSR) as self-defense against nuclear strikes. Everybody failed to complete that original project: Discovering VTOL requires nuclear weapons.
VTOL had greatest influence on maritime warfare in; fleet-defense, strike, and ground-attack roles.
Future-VTOL might perform other roles. Everything depends on what governments want. The UK has ordered more types of VTOL fighter than anyone else. The only thing the UK has not used VTOL for is 1) Air Superiority, and 2) Tactical Bombers.
However, the original UK VTOL project was to build an Air Superiority and Bomber combination.
UK: Sea Harrier, GR5, GR7, GR9, JSF
US: GR8, JSF
Australia: JSF
India: GR7
Russia: Yak-38, Yak-41
The American GR8-varient (aka Harrier II in the USA) is not a good example of multi-purpose VTOL. USMC put extra armour on the planes, making them heavier: USMC Harrier II are slower, have shorter range, and fewer weapons than the original GR8. I do not know why they did this, but I think they wanted to replace the A10 Tank Killer which is renowned as being tough. This is a good demonstration of how military requirements dictate performance more than technology does.
The JSF uses the same technology but will be STOVL only: It's vertical thrusters are not powerful enough to achieve VTOL.
VTOL was originally planned (UK, US, USSR) as self-defense against nuclear strikes. Everybody failed to complete that original project: Discovering VTOL requires nuclear weapons.
VTOL had greatest influence on maritime warfare in; fleet-defense, strike, and ground-attack roles.
Future-VTOL might perform other roles. Everything depends on what governments want. The UK has ordered more types of VTOL fighter than anyone else. The only thing the UK has not used VTOL for is 1) Air Superiority, and 2) Tactical Bombers.
However, the original UK VTOL project was to build an Air Superiority and Bomber combination.
UK: Sea Harrier, GR5, GR7, GR9, JSF
US: GR8, JSF
Australia: JSF
India: GR7
Russia: Yak-38, Yak-41
The American GR8-varient (aka Harrier II in the USA) is not a good example of multi-purpose VTOL. USMC put extra armour on the planes, making them heavier: USMC Harrier II are slower, have shorter range, and fewer weapons than the original GR8. I do not know why they did this, but I think they wanted to replace the A10 Tank Killer which is renowned as being tough. This is a good demonstration of how military requirements dictate performance more than technology does.
The 'specialised' role of a vtol aircraft is its ability to operate from a small base and perform a variety of roles that a single conventional aircraft could not. If 'specialised' is the wrong word, I apologise, but the fact remains it can do things that a cponventional fighter cant, and it can do things that a conventional helicoper cant. What it cant do is perform either role as well as a conventional whatever can.
Regarding range, vtol will cut heavily into its range/endurance limit any time it uses its vtol capability. This applies most obviously to take off and landing, but will also apply to, for example, asw work and essentially anything that involves taking on roles usually reserved for helicopters such as (very) close ground support, or using teh vtol functions to outmaneouver missiles or other aircraft.
Regarding the jsf, it seems several versions will be built, including at least three, one conventional, one stvol, and one a true vtol.
If teh uk has used vtol in many roles (a point i dont question), i suspect it is based on a question of using what you have. It doesnt have any carrier big enough for normal naval aircraft, so vtol is the only real way to go, and it orders more of the same to remain compatible with existing resources.
Regarding the vtol as a response to nuclear weapons, I fail completely to see how a better aircraft could hope to defend against a nuclear missile. It seems to me that it was more a result of general build a better aircraft rsearch than a direct response to nuclear weapons. The timing is more coincidental than cause-response.
Regarding range, vtol will cut heavily into its range/endurance limit any time it uses its vtol capability. This applies most obviously to take off and landing, but will also apply to, for example, asw work and essentially anything that involves taking on roles usually reserved for helicopters such as (very) close ground support, or using teh vtol functions to outmaneouver missiles or other aircraft.
Regarding the jsf, it seems several versions will be built, including at least three, one conventional, one stvol, and one a true vtol.
If teh uk has used vtol in many roles (a point i dont question), i suspect it is based on a question of using what you have. It doesnt have any carrier big enough for normal naval aircraft, so vtol is the only real way to go, and it orders more of the same to remain compatible with existing resources.
Regarding the vtol as a response to nuclear weapons, I fail completely to see how a better aircraft could hope to defend against a nuclear missile. It seems to me that it was more a result of general build a better aircraft rsearch than a direct response to nuclear weapons. The timing is more coincidental than cause-response.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
How about
Coal + Frigate without Iron = Steam Frigate armed with Trebuchet?
I would also include Euro ironclads, WW1 battleships, and battlecruisers in general. Aegis is a missile-guided cruiser/destroyer, but possibly include more primitive ones (they go back to the 1970's at least, don't they).
Coal + Frigate without Iron = Steam Frigate armed with Trebuchet?
I would also include Euro ironclads, WW1 battleships, and battlecruisers in general. Aegis is a missile-guided cruiser/destroyer, but possibly include more primitive ones (they go back to the 1970's at least, don't they).
rhialto said:
The UK used to have many large aircraft carriers. This applied to WW2, and the Cold War. The UK required a vast naval presence to neutralise the Soviet threat in the north sea (and block access to the Atlantic).
In the 1960s, the UK planned to continue this theme of maintaining huge carriers. The QE-class was a planned full-sized 50k ton supercarrier.
But you are right, the UK used what it had: It had VTOL so the big carriers were no longer essential!
Big carriers are still desireable, which is why the UK is now acquiring full-sized 60k ton supercarriers.
Point is that VTOL opens the door and allows other solutions.
You need to read more history books
The VTOL projects (UK, US, USSR) were based on the fear that a pre-emptive nuclear strike would destroy all established RAF & USAF airfields. All three powers concluded that VTOL would reduce the requirement for runways and allow their airforces to continue performing their role after such a strike.
So you see, the original idea behind VTOL was to remove the need for airstrips: Airforces could use carparks or similar!
However, the actual real world effect of having VTOL was that the same idea worked for ships! Suddenly the whole idea of needing runways at sea was obsolete.
The UK has always maintained a fairly large naval airforce and taken associated issues very seriously. It was at it's biggest during the Cold War.
We don't see much of the Russian navy. It is relatively quiet.
The USA has not had VTOL for very long, and still has large numbers of CTOL fighters in service. Complete transition takes time.
The UK supercarriers will initially be used for STOVL only. However, they are built to be adaptable for CTOL if needed in the future.
Some specialist aircraft do not currently exist as VTOL: Air superiority (i.e. RAF Typhoon) and tactical bombers (i.e. RAF Tornado) are the primary examples in the UK. It could be that making VTOL versions would never be cost-effective.
Some specialist aircraft do not currently exist as VTOL: Air superiority (i.e. RAF Typhoon) and tactical bombers (i.e. RAF Tornado) are the primary examples in the UK. It could be that making VTOL versions would never be cost-effective.
All ideas are good for brainstorming - it is the only way to guarantee a full pictureGoodGame said:
The Japanese built the first Ironclad. It was actually a mostly-wooden ship with all-iron roof to deflect arrows. This could be a middle-ages weapon in the age of trebushet.
Artillery were quite advanced by the age of steam. I think there were things like the pummel-gun, rifled-cannons, and torpedos: though not very good ones.
Actually, the Arabs built floating torpedos in the midde-ages to attack wooden ships. I don't think they were very influencial as they probably required calm waters
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
