Are Yak 38's fuel range really this bad?

[Lax]

I've been having some fun using Carriers with VTOLS but the fuel range makes it pretty difficult at times. I've been playing around with the Yak-38s and their distance is bad.

I do like the fact that they can be armed with load outs that can hit both air and surface, the AS-7 Kerrys are pretty decent if you are close enough to fire them. That being said the trade-off is the Yak 38's range is very bad.

I've tested this a few times and if you launch a 38 and give it a heading right away at full fuel, its range is less than 60 miles. You can adjust this a little by climbing to altitude but it is marginal.

To put this into perspective, the carrier's helicopters have further range than their aircraft. The yak 38s can't stay airborne than more than 20 minuets game time. And that's pushing it.

This makes going after ships pretty scary since the Harpoons will already be in range of your carrier by the time your at max range for a airstrike.

It's a challenge but its fun. I'm guessing they were designed to go after coastal targets that are already super close to the carrier. Its either that or just air cover around the Kiev-Class.

Love the game btw!

[Moth]

yes, just like harriers they really have really low flight time unless you cruise at 20000ft or so.

[HuffingJenkem]

They're Temu Harriers, and the Harrier itself had bad enough endurance.

Worth noting that
a) The Yak-38 was mostly a technology demonstrator/gap filler until they could get a proper replacement (the intended Yak-141)
b) They predate the air-launched Harpoon, the bombers they were intended to intercept would have been carrying at worst medium range PGMs or even bombs, not cruise missiles

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

It had pretty poor range IRL, but it shouldn't be that poor.

450nm to 200nm, depending on payload carried.

Since the game currently forces RTB at half fuel regardless of distance to carrier, your observation would suggest that best case they only have about half the range they should have (assuming maximum weapon payload).

Might be data used was from early usage, as it took a while for the Soviets to establish proper takeoff profile to prevent using massive amount of fuel while taking off.

[Thewood]

I would imagine its also very dependent on flight profile. Low altitude flights and high-speed intercepts will all make a very big difference. I always look at the Yak-38s as recon defenders. Really there just to keep recon planes honest. Maybe bomb a few fishing trawlers.

[kimpromo2]

The 80NM range is fairly accurate, according to Soviet tests, though only because the YAK-38 currently can only VTOL. Due to weight restrictions, the YAK-38 can only VTOL with around 1350kgs of fuel, and uses 360kg/240kg on takeoff and landing respectively afaik.

[HofVanStrudel]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

It had pretty poor range IRL, but it shouldn't be that poor.

450nm to 200nm, depending on payload carried.

Since the game currently forces RTB at half fuel regardless of distance to carrier, your observation would suggest that best case they only have about half the range they should have (assuming maximum weapon payload).

Might be data used was from early usage, as it took a while for the Soviets to establish proper takeoff profile to prevent using massive amount of fuel while taking off.

Do aircraft crash wuen low on fuel?

[Tennguy72]

The Yak-38's were pretty worthless when you got down to it. They didn't stand a snow flakes chance in hell against our aircraft. The Yak-38 didn't even have radar, highly limited on air-to-air munitions and they couldn't carry enough fuel to do anything other than be a target. Truth be told, had there been a war, I wouldn't have put it past Soviet leadership to have not deployed those birds.

[x1Heavy]

Our Tomcats could cross a ocean if they had to.

Anyone in a yak has to have a pair of balls I can tell you that.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

The 80NM range is fairly accurate, according to Soviet tests, though only because the YAK-38 currently can only VTOL. Due to weight restrictions, the YAK-38 can only VTOL with around 1350kgs of fuel, and uses 360kg/240kg on takeoff and landing respectively afaik.

Yes, from the sources I've found, pure VTOL operation was very problematic in terms of fuel consumption.

Apparently they did establish sort of a STOL profile for takeoff and landing later on that solved the issue somewhat, which apparently surprised NATO as they didn't expect the planes to reach out as far as they eventually did.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Tennguy72:

The Yak-38's were pretty worthless when you got down to it. They didn't stand a snow flakes chance in hell against our aircraft. The Yak-38 didn't even have radar, highly limited on air-to-air munitions and they couldn't carry enough fuel to do anything other than be a target. Truth be told, had there been a war, I wouldn't have put it past Soviet leadership to have not deployed those birds.

At the end of the day, it probably was more of a test bed for the Yak-141 which didn't enter service.

The carriers prior to Kusnetzov aren't even aircraft carriers in the western sense, and given the Soviets had plenty of very good AShMs that could reach further than the Yak-38 could fly or deploy weapons, I'm inclined to believe the reason to have them (the planes) was mostly to show off to client states.

The real strength of those platforms is ASW, that's what the Moskva class was designed for, and Kiev class is just an iteration on that concept with a token aircraft complement for light duties, and of course lots of missiles, because why not.

That lineage even shows in the Kusnetzov class, imo. I guess it sort of is an aircraft carrying battlecruiser?

[kimpromo2]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Originally posted by kimpromo2:

The 80NM range is fairly accurate, according to Soviet tests, though only because the YAK-38 currently can only VTOL. Due to weight restrictions, the YAK-38 can only VTOL with around 1350kgs of fuel, and uses 360kg/240kg on takeoff and landing respectively afaik.

Yes, from the sources I've found, pure VTOL operation was very problematic in terms of fuel consumption.

Apparently they did establish sort of a STOL profile for takeoff and landing later on that solved the issue somewhat, which apparently surprised NATO as they didn't expect the planes to reach out as far as they eventually did.

Yeah, STOL takeoff really helped the range, since you could carry more fuel and burnt way less on takeoff/landing (I believe the range went from 75km to 260km at sea level).

[supersound99ss]

They literally used a separate jet engine for vertical thrust. The weight penalty from that alone is why their range sucked. On top of that it was unreliable.

[SerJim]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Originally posted by Tennguy72:

The Yak-38's were pretty worthless when you got down to it. They didn't stand a snow flakes chance in hell against our aircraft. The Yak-38 didn't even have radar, highly limited on air-to-air munitions and they couldn't carry enough fuel to do anything other than be a target. Truth be told, had there been a war, I wouldn't have put it past Soviet leadership to have not deployed those birds.

At the end of the day, it probably was more of a test bed for the Yak-141 which didn't enter service.

The carriers prior to Kusnetzov aren't even aircraft carriers in the western sense, and given the Soviets had plenty of very good AShMs that could reach further than the Yak-38 could fly or deploy weapons, I'm inclined to believe the reason to have them (the planes) was mostly to show off to client states.

The real strength of those platforms is ASW, that's what the Moskva class was designed for, and Kiev class is just an iteration on that concept with a token aircraft complement for light duties, and of course lots of missiles, because why not.

That lineage even shows in the Kusnetzov class, imo. I guess it sort of is an aircraft carrying battlecruiser?

is this a joke? do you really not understand why the USSR built such ships? read about the Bosphorus and the Turkish restrictions on ships for the USSR and don't write nonsense

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by SerJim:

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

At the end of the day, it probably was more of a test bed for the Yak-141 which didn't enter service.

The carriers prior to Kusnetzov aren't even aircraft carriers in the western sense, and given the Soviets had plenty of very good AShMs that could reach further than the Yak-38 could fly or deploy weapons, I'm inclined to believe the reason to have them (the planes) was mostly to show off to client states.

The real strength of those platforms is ASW, that's what the Moskva class was designed for, and Kiev class is just an iteration on that concept with a token aircraft complement for light duties, and of course lots of missiles, because why not.

That lineage even shows in the Kusnetzov class, imo. I guess it sort of is an aircraft carrying battlecruiser?

is this a joke? do you really not understand why the USSR built such ships? read about the Bosphorus and the Turkish restrictions on ships for the USSR and don't write nonsense

Is this a joke?

The USSR merely classified these ships as aircraft cruisers because of the restrictions, to even suggest they built them for that reason is hilarious.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the USSR had plenty options to base actual aircraft carriers from which would make infinitely more sense than the Black Sea.

Maybe read up a bit on the history, design and requirements of these vessels before you write nonsense?

And while you're at it, read up on the terms of the Montreux Convention as well, as it appears you imagine it stipulates different things than it actually does.

[supersound99ss]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Originally posted by SerJim:

is this a joke? do you really not understand why the USSR built such ships? read about the Bosphorus and the Turkish restrictions on ships for the USSR and don't write nonsense

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the USSR had plenty options to base actual aircraft carriers from which would make infinitely more sense than the Black Sea.

Base, sure....build no. It's isn't just the Politburo's love of dacha's on the Black Sea why all their "carriers" were built there.