Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

LMFS wrote: if you manage to carry 3 sqdn fighters and to cover the rest of the functions needed you already have quite a big carrier most probably.

if 100k for or nimitz can take 48 fighters then how 44ktons can take 28?      

L wrote:

then deterrence you want to build up till US navy size? they you lost war already by bankrupting .   Real example we had in Syria proved that 8 fighters were more then enough.

Russia has already reached conventional deterrence close to their borders with their new missiles. All they need to do is to put them in service at the naval aviation and support with some decent air control capability. This is all within reach.

No, Russia will have nonnuclear sea-borders deterrence once missiles will be in service and bombers/fighter upgraded so couple of years ahead

L wrote:USN needs global presence (geography doesn't help them there, unlike what happens with Russia which has the worlds biggest landmass within reach) and very high strike volumes to be capable to intervene against the armed forces of complete countries. Russia needs nothing of that. As far as current capabilities look like, a salvo of more than 8-10 Kinzhal or Zircon against a CSG would be overkill, so tell me how many planes or missiles does Russia need for deterrence.

what about timeline Kiznhal is in service from when ? how many of them is in service  already? how many Kiznahl carriers ? Zircon wont be on ships before 2024 right? T
Russian missiles are a quantum leap in tech. Yes in 10-15  perhaps 20 year s they will be great mean of sea denial strategy. Though looking at them as "invincible ever after" is simply not true.

L wrote:

1) no I dont, I say not more fighters did the trick, as you insist, but other means of "signalling"  

Close to Russian border navy is not needed. A MiG-31K can take off at any time and sink a USN vessel in minutes (in theatre conventional deterrence). Far from Russia it is not like this. Again I am not insisting in hundreds of fighters but on qualitative edge of those, so I don't understand your insistence.
+++
You are not the guardian of Russian budget. Hell, these years they were no even capable of expending what they have allocated for navy due to lack of industrial capacity. They have laid clear their intent of developing a blue water navy in their naval strategy, who am I (or you, for the like) to question that? This means extra funding for things like 223050M, Lider, LHDs, carriers, air control planes, naval fighters and UCAVs, not to talk about subs. This will be all new and it is not me who is ordering it  

1) outside Russian "hypersonnic umbrella" still not many fighters are needed since they wont be foreseen for air dominance against USN aviation.   can we agree on this?

2) Russia has been very prudent with military spending so far.  Liders, Gorskhovs-m or Kazan/Husky didn't pop up just like that. But  because they will be main deterrence factor not fighters for RuN.  
None LHD nor CVN were ordered or even project  approved yet. Kuz renovation funding cut by half.  

My hope is that VSTOL was ordered for a reason tho and CVN somehow will be build.

L wrote:

3) bigger CVN does it all according to you? I disagree

A basic LHD without any expensive systems and weapons is useful for what, according to you? You keep talking about "big" and "small" and I don't know what you mean. I laid down already what I think would be good enough.

so how do you explain that QE2  is CV and costs  ~1/3 Ford price?

BTW LHD in French/US fashion wont happen in Russia. As they never did. Even Russian  Mistral was to have decent armament.  If Russian want ot make a hybridn landing ship/CV this nore likely be Like QE2 or De Gaulle with 900 marines an like kuz 24helos 26 fighters .  or if separate then something like Krylov's "pocket CV" yet then less since LHDs need exist also.

Displacement most likely in range of 40kt-50kt and  by no means  80-100ktons.

L wrote:

same random guys that were fighting Erdogan, AFAIK ~30k military were prosecuted

Some "random" 30,000??   Or rather their armed forces had been co-opted by US?

would you expect coup in 70m country can be done by some random pilot? without US support. ekhm no, not US of course but Gulen, who is accidentally, living in the USA        

L wrote:

if US wants war they dont need any provocation. For whom if world wont exist anymore?  and you Russia should do this? I can answer you already: you cannot. Besides ensuring US motherfucking elites  know they will be  killed  till last  one of  them.

They want to keep the conflict conventional, I am saying this in my post but if you read 50% the discussion is difficult.

I read your posts but you try to create non existent reality to me.  Please tell me when in  history of USSR/US  countering or recently Syria something like "local conventional war" happened ? This alwasy go vis proxy even if on both sides there are Russians and Americans.

Do you really believe that Russia will not  use nukes when US starts a major attack ? In conventional war  with west Russia always is on loosing side. Simple resources ratio.
Or perhaps you believe in "limited nuclear war"? I dont  and from what I can see Russian politicians also dont.

L wrote:

any example of escalation now? i fail to see any, help is appreciated

Do you see sanctions against Russia being removed or quite the contrary? INF? Test of new missiles? Space Force and test of neutron weapons? Deployment of B-52s to Europe? Where do you think this is all going?

I see information and economical component not military. B-52 bombing Russia? cmon. economic sanctions+ arms race is precisely what is bad for Russia not B-52.  If Russia would spend on military too much then  looses war as well.  
MAD ensures that no  military aggression happens as long as retaliation is ensured. This can be done only by nukes or weapons with similar fire power not CVNs in number Russia can afford.

L wrote:

you cannot be serious with that, can you?

Dead serious. They are not sane, hadn't you noticed?? These kind of gloomy scenarios don't count for the psychopathic adventurist that is so sought after for plotting US foreign policy. Whereas the thing authoritarian people hate the most is their authority being questioned. Top that in the US elites' case with an irrational faith in their inherent superiority. They don't think in getting killed and if all, who will live to see their defeat? We will die all.

call me optimist, as long as Fashington elites know they are on gunpoint there will be no war.

L wrote:

3) defeat 2 CSGs ? wow ? Russian admirals dont seem to be on your level of optimism.

Based on currently available or soon to be commissioned equipment, say 10 years in the future max, what means would USN have to defeat a potential Su-57K exactly? What long range AAMs to counter Russian R-37M and Izd. 180? What equivalent to Kinzhal or Zircon to pierce ADs from stand off ranges? How does the comparison regarding range, speed, flight altitude, weapons payload, manoeuvrability look like for USN fighters? It is not a matter of numbers anymore but of qualitative difference. USN would have no arguments IMHO. Exchange ratios of 4:1 are nothing special if you listen to Americans and their Red Flag stories  

Optimistic, very I'd say.  Till 2023 Su-57 is being under test.Nnext 10 years or so Su-33/MiG-29k are only deck fighters. So far only 15 Su-57 are ordered and  no 57k is even considered. Im sorry because so i dont see those tens of 57k and many  CVNs before mid 2030.

BTW do you think SM6 will defend against hypersonic maneuvering DongFeng but not against Kinzhals/Zircons? Unfortunately F-35 wins with any 29k or Su-33 unless they will undergo major upgrades.

L wrote:

I did Royal navy, Italian navy or  Japs Navy.  They all use (or plan to) exclusively  VSTOL.

I mean navies of countries that make their foreign policy themselves and not Western poodles. US, China, Russia, India qualify, maybe some others too that I omitted but most will lack size and capability. To RuN is of no interest if the navy of San Marino wants to paint a container ship in grey and put some STOVL on top. They need real capabilities, not being supporting acts.

Wow Russia will be on GDP  level o India/china or USA in terms of GDP? congrats to your optimism.  We can use different sources independent  is only to illustrate ratio magnitude. Let Russia be on 4th place with ~$6Tn (might be with great dose of luck ) still you compare navies with 3-6 times bigger budgets. Please you dont tell me you dont see difference ?    


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/these-will-be-the-32-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-a7569941.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(PPP)#IMF_estimates_between_2020_and_2023

GDP.PPP 2030
6. Russia — $4.736 trillion

3. India — $19.511 trillion

2. United States — $23.475 trillion

1. China — $38.008 trillion





[quote-"L"]

what about that Im just realistic and understand that you need to live withing your resources?

We all think our guesses are doable and reasonable, that is the fun of this.
[/quote]
true

L wrote:

Ask yourself why many of my "defeatist guesses" were then somehow confirmed by Russian MoD decisions?  

I better ask yourself. I have some hits to boast about too, but success in a past "guess" proves nothing for the future. Do you claim you never failed a prognosis?

neeh,  not always, but  so far better then you and GB      

L wrote:

hmm if you check timeline and geopolitics then you'd realize they didnt really . Their assumptions were based on political decisions. Now when they need to counter technological enemies they start and get there very soon in terms or geopolitical eras.

B-2, F-22, F-35, FCS, Litoral Combat Ship, Zumwalt, Ford carrier, railgun, ABM, hypersonics just to name a few concrete programs and areas that took ages to realize and produced mixed results at best. They concentrated on neo-colonial uses of the military and fell in surreal levels of corruption while neglecting real technology, because they (politically, you are right) thought the history had come to a conclusion with their "full spectrum dominance". This is a blunder of insurmountable consequences now, even if they catch up they have lost initiative.

to be honest every country had ups and downs: Russia MiG-144, LHDs, T-95, Bagruzin. Major delays in AIP/Ladas/T-14/Su-57/Yasens  or Liders. US didnt have to focus on any direction yet.
Unfortunately they have to do it now.

What is great in that move is that this gives Prussians yet another 15-20 years for economy rebuilding and new weapons research. Time works for Russians since in 20 years Us wont be first definitely will be at most on 3rd place. If Eu units more perhaps on 4th.

L wrote:

Ratio 1030/42 = 24,5 :1
Sorry  I was wrong. It's more then 20:1

Great, you suggest they will somehow manage to have all those planes at the same spot to counter a Russian carrier? And why you submit that I consider current RuN a match for USN, do you think I am mad? They don't even have a carrier...

did  I say all? 10-15% is more by 2-3 times then whole Russian deck aviation. What about  2 CSGs always shadowing Russian movements? or one with couple of  extra LHDs 20 F-35 each?

Tsavo Lion wrote:I'm talking about the Tu-16M AV-MF maritime strike version, Tu-16KS

Sorry I misread it! But it is not operational right?

No need to go 10K km, interdicting CBGs in the N. Atlantic/N/W. Pacific & Med. Sea from land bases was well within their capabilities.
Even w/o IRPs, the Tu-22M3s have even longer operational range of 7,000 km:

With load they cannot fly that long, and you should consider further range reductions in case they need to dash. They would fly alone and vulnerable, it would be so easy for US to intercept them in the middle of the way. You need to be closer to the action to be effective.

With INF treaty dead, they may get IRPs.

It would be START if I am not wrong... but I am pretty sure they will get them, the M3M already seems to have the space reserved at the nose.

Parity is not the name of the game here. Asymmetry is.

I mean parity in terms of being capable of threatening USN too. If a fleet of tankers extend the range of naval US fighters beyond reach of Russian hypersonic missiles then you need tankers too. And to launch them, catapults are going to be important I think.

CTOLs/AWACS/CODs on CATOBAR CV/Ns will need to have airframes/landing gear strengthened, won't last as many hours as STOLs or STOVLs, & some will still crash (killing pilots), thanks to CATOBAR issues

This is speculation to a certain extent and economic effects are very minor

Tilt-rotors & new helos may not be as good, but only marginally, since most of the time these ships won't be too far from land.

The critical role is to keep up with USN, not half-arsed missions in 3rd world. The carriers are designed for top notch capabilities and that makes them expensive.

If its op-tempo is similar to TAKR's, not a big deal that they won't be as capable as a CV/N, nor do they need to be. Russia can compensate it with her other assets & tactics, like she did in Syria, where Adm. K was only partially successful & didn't change anything at sea & on the ground.

The issue is Syria is close to Russia and US direct involvement was mild. There is a whole range of other situations you need to size your military for. Of course there is always something you can do, but it is better to intervene soon and avoid the destruction of a country than having to build it again. To do that far from Russia a powerful navy is needed, it is really that simple.

With CVNs, to justify their keep, there'll be a temptation to use them (& possibly loosing them) in neo-colonial wars &/ against peer adversaries making conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine & Syria pale in comparison. The Russian Empire overextended herself in Alaska + small colonies in California & Hawaii that she eventually had to sell/abandon; now she must defend her perimeter, adjust borders,  & protect Ms ethnic Russians around it, not engage in overseas adventures as the US did. After all, she doesn't need some1 like Trump moving into Kremlin.

Nobody I think is talking about Russia bombing countries that don't bow to them. Just about protecting allies from destruction. Is this not legit? What is wrong with preventing the death of hundreds of thousands and the misery to whole generations? There are legitimate uses for armed forces beyond killing and looting I think. Not that Russia does this as a ONG but bringing balance to international relations will have exactly this effect and that is good in a global perspective.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:if 100k for or nimitz can take 48 fighters then how 44ktons can take 28?      

You mean the light carrier from Krylov? Without checking your numbers, it had a innovative hull design capable of an increased air wing.

No, Russia will have nonnuclear sea-borders deterrence once missiles will be in service and bombers/fighter upgraded so couple of years ahead

Not going to discuss this since I don't know how many operational MiG-31Ks are, how "operational" the Kinzhals are and how many Kh-32 too, among others. USN has no long range supersonic missile that would threaten seriously Russia either. But you get the idea.

what about timeline Kiznhal is in service from when ? how many of them is in service  already? how many Kiznahl carriers ? Zircon wont be on ships before 2024 right? T

Exactly what I said above, it is unclear. But US is probably not wanting to make a test of the Russian capabilities right? And that is the important thing in the end, to cool hot heads.

Russian missiles are a quantum leap in tech. Yes in 10-15  perhaps 20 year s they will be great mean of sea denial strategy. Though looking at them as "invincible ever after" is simply not true.

Obviously countermeasures will be developed. SM-6 is going to be updated for instance, investment is heavy in hypersonics and you can bet they are scrambling to come up with something asap. But until then Russia gets a fantastic asymmetrical advantage to compensate numbers and budget with technology. And since they are not trying to crush US but to get deterrence, they have a strategic advantage while US faces and uphill struggle.

1) outside Russian "hypersonnic umbrella" still not many fighters are needed since they wont be foreseen for air dominance against USN aviation.   can we agree on this?

It is difficult for me to know what you mean exactly with "many fighters". As said, a Russian CV could be smaller than a USN one since they don't need that strike volume. But they would need very good fighters in the required numbers to dispute air superiority with USN CSGs yes, otherwise they cannot help protecting the fleet. Can we agree on that? Other than that, why to bother with naval aviation?

2) Russia has been very prudent with military spending so far.  Liders, Gorskhovs-m or Kazan/Husky didn't pop up just like that. But  because they will be main deterrence factor not fighters for RuN.  
None LHD nor CVN were ordered or even project  approved yet. Kuz renovation funding cut by half.

 
I have seen the plans for development of carriers, destroyers, subs, fighters, AWACS etc., but not any statement of the type "the carriers and the fighters are not the important part here but they are fancy". They are important or they would not be pursued.
The K funding issue still needs to be seen. No modification of the scope has been communicated so we will see in a couple of years what was done and what not.

so how do you explain that QE2  is CV and costs  ~1/3 Ford price?

Because US MIC rips off the DoD, to start with. And they deserved it, since they don't want to defend the country, but to have all sorts of gadgets to put other people under their boot with impunity. And that is a luxury item you are going to pay for.

As for the QE, is quite unremarkable in every aspect I have seen except for its ugliness. And still quite expensive. Russia should be able to do a good nuclear STOBAR carrier for less.

BTW LHD in French/US fashion wont happen in Russia. As they never did. Even Russian  Mistral was to have decent armament.  If Russian want ot make a hybridn landing ship/CV this nore likely be Like QE2 or De Gaulle with 900 marines an like kuz 24helos 26 fighters .  or if separate then something like Krylov's "pocket CV" yet then less since LHDs need exist also.

I am fine with that. As said Russian strategy is not to create big dependencies between different assets and make each one as capable as possible in order to avoid breakdown of their joint capability in case the support chain is disrupted. So a Russian carrier would at least have very solid AD with radars, SAMs and CIWS of very high saturation threshold and abundant ASW means. Maybe some ASMs for the odd case too, but as said IMO they should not exaggerate there, the air wing is their most valuable asset.

Displacement most likely in range of 40kt-50kt and  by no means  80-100ktons.

I think but it is just a hunch that they will grow the light carrier a bit. So a Kuznetsov sized carrier (ca. 60 kT) but with capacity for a bigger air wing and better hangars and longer endurance. I hope for them addressing the vulnerability to deck damage in a creative way.

I read your posts but you try to create non existent reality to me.  Please tell me when in  history of USSR/US  countering or recently Syria something like "local conventional war" happened ? This alwasy go vis proxy even if on both sides there are Russians and Americans.

That is the danger, we are not living in the past anymore. Barbarossa didn't start until it did. Napoleon didn't try luck, until he did. All Western powers reach the point when they feel it is now or never, and this moment is coming for US.

Do you really believe that Russia will not  use nukes when US starts a major attack ?

I am not sure and that is the problem, because I know neocons are crazier than me. If they think Putin is a pussy and attack, what will be the use of them being wrong? We will all be turned into ashes all the same.

In conventional war  with west Russia always is on loosing side. Simple resources ratio.

They are doing everything they can to have conventional means of retaliation. It is their (and our) best hope.

Or perhaps you believe in "limited nuclear war"? I dont  and from what I can see Russian politicians also dont.

Don't think this is an experiment worth trying actually...

I see information and economical component not military.

I encourage yourself to check again. US has been and is in fact actively trying to checkmate Russia with their ABM systems and increasing encroachment on Russian borders with NATO and their Eastern vassals. The military situation is extremely dangerous for Russia, with Mk-41 cells right at their borders, USN vessels in Odessa etc etc. Really you are very optimistic.

MAD ensures that no  military aggression happens as long as retaliation is ensured. This can be done only by nukes or weapons with similar fire power not CVNs in number Russia can afford.

There are many ways of bleeding Russia without a direct all-out attack too. The Western supremacy depends on that so they will think hard.

call me optimist, as long as Fashington elites know they are on gunpoint there will be no war.

They will be long gone to their holes when the party starts. Unlikely that Russia can do much since they are not so many and can spread a lot.

Optimistic, very I'd say.  Till 2023 Su-57 is being under test.Nnext 10 years or so Su-33/MiG-29k are only deck fighters. So far only 15 Su-57 are ordered and  no 57k is even considered. Im sorry because so i dont see those tens of 57k and many  CVNs before mid 2030.

We need to see, but this is the best plan I can think of.

BTW do you think SM6 will defend against hypersonic maneuvering DongFeng but not against Kinzhals/Zircons? Unfortunately F-35 wins with any 29k or Su-33 unless they will undergo major upgrades.

SM-6 wont defend either of the two, what makes you think it can cope with such hypersonic targets?
F-35 against RuN fighters depends on many issues, I cannot conclude anything without some background.

Wow Russia will be on GDP  level o India/china or USA in terms of GDP? congrats to your optimism.  We can use different sources independent  is only to illustrate ratio magnitude. Let Russia be on 4th place with ~$6Tn (might be with great dose of luck ) still you compare navies with 3-6 times bigger budgets. Please you dont tell me you dont see difference ?    

So they can have one of the two (by far) biggest and the most modern nuclear arsenal with that money but they cannot have two or three carriers? GPD is not everything. And IMF can say what they want, not going to change military balance where Russia is a superpower and sells all kinds of weapons to India and even some still to China. MoD has their plans and can count certainly, if they say they want carriers is because they can. We made some numbers and the expenses with the calculated costs were acceptable given they will be spread over many years. Don't understand why you get mad at this.

neeh,  not always, but  so far better then you and GB      

Sure, enlighten me  

to be honest every country had ups and downs: Russia MiG-144, LHDs, T-95, Bagruzin. Major delays in AIP/Ladas/T-14/Su-57/Yasens  or Liders. US didnt have to focus on any direction yet.
Unfortunately they have to do it now.

If Su-57 comes a little later it is no blunder, just savings because you delay the expense. Many other topics come from the restructuring needed after the fall of the Soviet Union. But generally speaking their direction is rather clear and intelligent. US has lost their way in many regards but you are right that now they have a reference and that is not good for Russia.

What is great in that move is that this gives Prussians yet another 15-20 years for economy rebuilding and new weapons research. Time works for Russians since in 20 years Us wont be first definitely will be at most on 3rd place. If Eu units more perhaps on 4th.

That is the idea I guess. To delay and delay the moment where US feels comfortable to attack to the point they are defeated economically... only thing I don't see is what Prussians have to do with this  

did  I say all? 10-15% is more by 2-3 times then whole Russian deck aviation. What about  2 CSGs always shadowing Russian movements? or one with couple of  extra LHDs 20 F-35 each?

In the mid to long term scenario I refer that would be ok. If you are so nice to send more LHDs and F-35Bs that would make it easier for Zircons to do the cleaning. Now of course there is nothing to talk about. And in the very long term, I have no clue!

So they can have one of the two (by far) biggest and the most modern nuclear arsenal with that money but they cannot have two or three carriers?

Most of their current arsenal came from the USSR, & before 1991 it built 5.5 TAKRs + was working on Ulyanovsk.
By some estimates, N. Korea has at least 10 warheads- does it mean she can afford a few LHA/LHDs like S. Korea? Over their lifetime, those would cost more than those nukes & BMs.
If Russia must invest in systems she thinks r essential/crucial, CV/Ns can be comfortably put on the back burner as they won't change the strategic equation much anyway.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:if 100k for or nimitz can take 48 fighters then how 44ktons can take 28?      

You mean the light carrier from Krylov? Without checking your numbers, it had a innovative hull design capable of an increased air wing.

ok check numbers now :

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/august-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6451-russia-s-krylov-research-center-unveils-light-aircraft-carrier-design.html

The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons.

aircraft carrier’s air wing consists of 46 flying craft, including 12-14 Su-33 and 12-14 MiG -29K/KUB fighter jets;

L wrote:

No, Russia will have nonnuclear sea-borders deterrence once missiles will be in service and bombers/fighter upgraded so couple of years ahead

Not going to discuss this since I don't know how many operational MiG-31Ks are, how "operational" the Kinzhals are and how many Kh-32 too, among others. USN has no long range supersonic missile that would threaten seriously Russia either. But you get the idea.

hmm not sure why you need supersonic missiles? like subsonic LRCM pose no threat. KinzhalsKh-22/32 are to keep only CSGs out. 14 Ohio with Tridents + 4 with 156 Tomahawks each not ot mention Burkes are enough tthreat withour supersonic missiles
.

L wrote:

what about timeline Kiznhal is in service from when ? how many of them is in service  already? how many Kiznahl carriers ? Zircon wont be on ships before 2024 right? T

Exactly what I said above, it is unclear. But US is probably not wanting to make a test of the Russian capabilities right? And that is the important thing in the end, to cool hot heads.

USA doesn't attack if they can get something in return

L wrote:

Russian missiles are a quantum leap in tech. Yes in 10-15  perhaps 20 year s they will be great mean of sea denial strategy. Though looking at them as "invincible ever after" is simply not true.

Obviously countermeasures will be developed. SM-6 is going to be updated for instance, investment is heavy in hypersonics and you can bet they are scrambling to come up with something asap. But until then Russia gets a fantastic asymmetrical advantage to compensate numbers and budget with technology. And since they are not trying to crush US but to get deterrence, they have a strategic advantage while US faces and uphill struggle.

precisely how i see it

L wrote:

1) outside Russian "hypersonnic umbrella" still not many fighters are needed since they wont be foreseen for air dominance against USN aviation.   can we agree on this?

It is difficult for me to know what you mean exactly with "many fighters". As said, a Russian CV could be smaller than a USN one since they don't need that strike volume. But they would need very good fighters in the required numbers to dispute air superiority with USN CSGs yes, otherwise they cannot help protecting the fleet. Can we agree on that? Other than that, why to bother with naval aviation?

This is simply impossible. Simple numbers issue 20-30 fighters/drones against mix of 150-200 drones fighter form US? Even if on time when Russian deck fighter appears it will be better, US will soon have comparable only by order of magnitude more.

Deck fighters will be part of layered defense of course but IMHO the weakest one if you mean A2A protection. Their most important task will be sinking aircraft carriers with long range hipersonic ASh missiles. i dont see other sense of US CSG air-2-air missions unless we look for heroic death of pilots .


BTW currently Russian deck aviation doesn't make sense at all for USN countering. 42 of MiGs with 2012 avionics + even older Su-33 vs 1000+ F-18/F-35? to air dominance? how?




quote="L"]

BTW LHD in French/US fashion wont happen in Russia. As they never did. Even Russian  Mistral was to have decent armament.  If Russian want ot make a hybridn landing ship/CV this nore likely be Like QE2 or De Gaulle with 900 marines an like kuz 24helos 26 fighters .  or if separate then something like Krylov's "pocket CV" yet then less since LHDs need exist also.

I am fine with that. As said Russian strategy is not to create big dependencies between different assets and make each one as capable as possible in order to avoid breakdown of their joint capability in case the support chain is disrupted. So a Russian carrier would at least have very solid AD with radars, SAMs and CIWS of very high saturation threshold and abundant ASW means. Maybe some ASMs for the odd case too, but as said IMO they should not exaggerate there, the air wing is their most valuable asset.[/quote]

not at all, with smaller number of fighters and excellent ASAD/ASh it actually makes sense very much. but ...add a bit armor and we are back to TAKRs..

L wrote:

Displacement most likely in range of 40kt-50kt and  by no means  80-100ktons.

I think but it is just a hunch that they will grow the light carrier a bit. So a Kuznetsov sized carrier (ca. 60 kT) but with capacity for a bigger air wing and better hangars and longer endurance. I hope for them addressing the vulnerability to deck damage in a creative way.

BTW Kievs were armored to sustain 30kt explosion from 2000m... and keep fighting. Granits were do the trick becsue they assumed deck will be radioactive. but now.. in age of drones and autonomous robots to do service...

I read your posts but you try to create non existent reality to me.  Please tell me when in  history of USSR/US  countering or recently Syria something like "local conventional war" happened ? This alwasy go vis proxy even if on both sides there are Russians and Americans.

That is the danger, we are not living in the past anymore. Barbarossa didn't start until it did. Napoleon didn't try luck, until he did. All Western powers reach the point when they feel it is now or never, and this moment is coming for US.

L wrote:

Do you really believe that Russia will not  use nukes when US starts a major attack ?

I am not sure and that is the problem, because I know neocons are crazier than me. If they think Putin is a pussy and attack, what will be the use of them being wrong? We will all be turned into ashes all the same.

Here we definitely disagree. Me thinks they are morons but regards on rhetoric they are not suicidal. Its all about money after all.

L wrote:

In conventional war  with west Russia always is on loosing side. Simple resources ratio.

They are doing everything they can to have conventional means of retaliation. It is their (and our) best hope.

what's perfectly is logical, you dont need land, resources that are radioactive. you need lands and slaves.

L wrote:

Or perhaps you believe in "limited nuclear war"? I dont  and from what I can see Russian politicians also dont.

Don't think this is an experiment worth trying actually...

I dont think anybody is gonna even try. As logn as enough nukes are on duty.

L wrote:

I see information and economical component not military.

I encourage yourself to check again. US has been and is in fact actively trying to checkmate Russia with their ABM systems and increasing encroachment on Russian borders with NATO and their Eastern vassals. The military situation is extremely dangerous for Russia, with Mk-41 cells right at their borders, USN vessels in Odessa etc etc. Really you are very optimistic.

Well this is not about massive conventional war but disabling Russian nuclear retaliation abilities. Again it is about nukes.

L wrote:

call me optimist, as long as Fashington elites know they are on gunpoint there will be no war.

They will be long gone to their holes when the party starts. Unlikely that Russia can do much since they are not so many and can spread a lot.

that's why Russians need to ensure that holes or not, nothing remins but radioactive glass surface

L wrote:

Optimistic, very I'd say.  Till 2023 Su-57 is being under test.Nnext 10 years or so Su-33/MiG-29k are only deck fighters. So far only 15 Su-57 are ordered and  no 57k is even considered. Im sorry because so i dont see those tens of 57k and many  CVNs before mid 2030.

We need to see, but this is the best plan I can think of.

no worries, RuN finds something better

L wrote:

Wow Russia will be on GDP  level o India/china or USA in terms of GDP? congrats to your optimism.  We can use different sources independent  is only to illustrate ratio magnitude. Let Russia be on 4th place with ~$6Tn (might be with great dose of luck ) still you compare navies with 3-6 times bigger budgets. Please you dont tell me you dont see difference ?    

So they can have one of the two (by far) (1) biggest and the most modern nuclear arsenal with that money but they cannot have two or three carriers? GPD is not everything. And IMF can say what they want, not going to change military balance where Russia is a superpower and sells all kinds of weapons to India and even some still to China. MoD has their plans and can count certainly, (2) if they say they want carriers is because they can. We made some (3) numbers and the expenses with the calculated costs were acceptable given they will be spread over many years. Don't understand why you get mad at this.

(1) becsue nuclear deterrent it what keeps Russia safe ? CVN for Russia is cherry on pie. Cool to have to have but nothing really vital

(2) Well, they said they can have AIP, Rubezh or Bagruzin too if I right . Cherry on pie you know.

(3) and here is the trick. With deck aviation numbers Russia can afford assuming air dominance makes little sense. Unless you mean flying over your fleet. or quick dashes to fire long rang missiles.


(4) technology changes everything... what if in 2040s CNs will look yet different?

Tu-123 could be launched without runway at all. What if new VSTOL will be "optionally manned" light drone fighter?




http://xn--80aafy5bs.xn--p1ai/aviamuseum/aviatsiya/sssr/bpla/sverhzvukovoj-dalnij-bpla-razvedchik-tu-123-yastreb/

L wrote:

What is great in that move is that this gives Prussians yet another 15-20 years for economy rebuilding and new weapons research. Time works for Russians since in 20 years Us wont be first definitely will be at most on 3rd place. If Eu units more perhaps on 4th.

That is the idea I guess. To delay and delay the moment where US feels comfortable to attack to the point they are defeated economically... only thing I don't see is what Prussians have to do with this  

we need to take Rome example slowly but surely all the way down

The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons.

aircraft carrier’s air wing consists of 46 flying craft, including 12-14 Su-33 and 12-14 MiG -29K/KUB fighter jets;

Yeah but most of them would need to stay on the deck as there no place in the hangar for 46 aircraft.

Which means they will suffer more from the salted water, sun and probably snow during winter.

..4 with 156 Tomahawks each

No, up to 154 CMs each.

Yeah but most of them would need to stay on the deck as there no place in the hangar for 46 aircraft.

The Nimitz class can fit 49 aircraft on the "roof" & 44 in the hangar:
https://i.imgur.com/MMBWwYD.jpg
https://operationnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cvn78-10.jpg

Most of the time more aircraft r parked topside than below, since they must be brought there & back which is not easy & takes time.

Which means they will suffer more from the salted water, sun and probably snow during winter.

They can use protective tarps/foil, just like the USN does in the ME against blowing sand/dust, even inside the hangar. The lift doors r open most of the time anyway, so as much moisture enters the hangar bay as on the topside.
Snow/ice buildup will also be prevented by tarps &/ maintenance crews.
The hangar bay will still be big enough to do maintenance, its main function.

Is this thread actually going anywhere with real news or is it just an endless loop of the same tired discussions?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons.

aircraft carrier’s air wing consists of 46 flying craft, including 12-14 Su-33 and 12-14 MiG -29K/KUB fighter jets;

Great. The Krylov guy said that the carrier was small in displacement but allowed a "balanced" air wing, that means to me, a capable air wing capable as opposed to that of a small carrier without the internal capacity and deck size the new hull allows.

I have also read that in general they estimate one aircraft per kT displacement, this is bit better while most examples of mono-hull layout are generally a bit worse than that value.

hmm not sure why you need supersonic missiles? like subsonic  LRCM pose no threat.  KinzhalsKh-22/32  are to keep only CSGs out.  14 Ohio with Tridents + 4 with 156 Tomahawks each not ot mention  Burkes are enough tthreat withour  supersonic missiles.

Of course but not of the same calibre. Long range missiles can be detected and intercepted over great distances, before they reach an extremely capable and multi-layered AD network. Subs cannot launch so many missiles near to Russia before a Russian present comes to their position at high speed, their salvos are not very fast. And of course they should defeat Russian ASW means before.

USA doesn't attack if  they can get something in return      

Exactly what I mean. Bullies with bleeding noses don't scare anyone and that is what they fear the most.

This is simply impossible. Simple numbers issue 20-30 fighters/drones  against mix of 150-200 drones fighter form US? Even if on time when Russian deck fighter appears it will be better, US will soon have comparable only by order of magnitude more.

That would mean one Russian CV against 4-5 CSGs? Not very realistic, check really how many of them are available at any time. I am speculating, but as said potential capabilities of a naval Su-57 against F-35C/F-18E allow in my very humble opinion to think about very lopsided exchange ratios, because USN fighters would find it very difficult to control the engagements. USN will fight to compensate this (by now only potential) gap of course but it is not easy or quick.

Deck fighters will be part of layered defense of course but IMHO the weakest one if you mean A2A protection.  Their most  important task will be sinking aircraft carriers with long range hipersonic  ASh missiles. i dont see other sense of US CSG air-2-air missions unless we look for heroic death of  pilots .

The chance to launch the ASMs is for those who manage to win the DCA-OCA battle, that is why you need serious air superiority capabilities. And also good interception performance to shoot down enemy ASMs far from the ships. SAMs in the ships are slow to be reloaded, more expensive and better used as a last resource. A cheap AAM from a fighter can intercept a CM at a fraction of the cost and twice the range a SAM would do.

BTW currently  Russian deck aviation doesn't make sense at all for USN countering. 42 of  MiGs with 2012 avionics + even older Su-33 vs 1000+  F-18/F-35? to air dominance? how?

Please consider I talk about a potential capability gap, because USN retired the F-14 and committed to the F-35C until mid 2030's at least. Nowadays Russian naval fleet is irrelevant, we agree there.

not at all, with smaller number of fighters and excellent ASAD/ASh it actually makes sense very much. but ...add a bit armor and we are back to TAKRs..

Lets agree to disagree then.

BTW Kievs were armored to sustain 30kt explosion from 2000m... and keep fighting. Granits were do the trick becsue they assumed deck will be radioactive. but now.. in age of drones and autonomous robots to do service...

A simple hole in the landing deck disables the carrier and dooms the planes in the air, unless they find other place to land. This is the worst weakness IMO for carriers in modern war. Weapons are very precise now so no need to go nuclear, just punch a hole in the landing deck and it is game over. This needs to be addressed.

Here we definitely disagree. Me thinks they are morons but  regards on rhetoric they are not suicidal. Its all about money after all.

Not exactly, it is about power. Money without power goes as easy as it comes. But power allows you to get money and more importantly, to keep it. As Lavrov said, Wet is not ready to see 500 years of world domination coming to an end. Nobody wants that to happen under their guard, and much less just after they won Cold War and brought history to its culmination. They are deluded, they are not rational and they are narcissistic self-worshippers. They are not in a mental position to compromise, it will be an extremely painful awakening for them. Normal healthy people have problems understanding how these beasts tick, I know.

what's perfectly  is logical, you dont need land, resources that are radioactive. you need lands and slaves.

Excuse me? Don't get it sorry

that's why Russians need to  ensure that holes or not,  nothing remins but radioactive glass surface

Not even the whole nuclear arsenal can achieve that. It is easy and cheap to dig a deep hole and stuff it with supplies, specially if you are very rich. Already happening it seems.

(1)  becsue nuclear deterrent it what keeps Russia safe ? CVN for Russia is cherry on pie. Cool to have to have but nothing really vital

Maybe. But they don't want to depend on enemy blunders like those of US to survive. If ABM effort had succeed, Russia may not be there now. So they need a bigger economy and that implies power projection. They have the right too.

(2) Well, they said  they can have AIP, Rubezh  or Bagruzin too if I right . Cherry on pie you know.

What do you mean?

(3) and here is the trick. With deck aviation numbers Russia can afford assuming air dominance makes little sense. Unless you mean flying over your fleet. or quick dashes to fire long rang missiles.

Not dominance but deterrence.

(4) technology changes everything... what if in 2040s CNs will look yet different?  
Tu-123 could be launched without runway at all. What if new VSTOL will be "optionally manned" light drone fighter?

Cool but Russia needs to go step by step in order to understand the problems and advantages of different concepts and take right decisions for the future.

flamming_python wrote:Is this thread actually going anywhere with real news or is it just an endless loop of the same tired discussions?

Nope, just the same tired discussions. We are somehow expecting news this spring, as a decision was to be taken about carrier concept to be pursued by RuN, on which logically the characteristics of the naval aviation depend. But better dont hold your breath.

When they don't compare with USA, they make good articles.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-big-naval-move-new-aircraft-carriers-and-dangerous-new-fighter-jets-47597

@Tsavo/LMFS/GB - I m gonna reply in the new thread "Discussion about deck aviation and carriers future in RuN" 

 Im about to open in couple of minutes. 

Isos wrote:When they don't compare with USA, they make good articles.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-big-naval-move-new-aircraft-carriers-and-dangerous-new-fighter-jets-47597

true, especially that they almost copier Izvestia article 

https://iz.ru/780270/ilia-kramnik/avianesushchie-zagadki-chto-obeshchaiut-chinovniki





BTW I'd love to learn more about what's happening in VSTOL project, I can see two options

a) heavy fighter with (V)STOL abilities.
Cool , payload, range can be decent - vide Su-33 vs F-18.  |Disadvantage is smaller number per ship...what might not relly be good if Russia doesnt plan build 100k tons monstwers

Last but not least is heavy then WTF create new programme and 10 years ?  why not to add hook to Su-57?



b) light  VSTOL fighter
Smaller range is not really problem if you defend ship groupings and use long range weapons. Even Yak-141 had 700km radius vs F-22s 800km
Since Su-57 is heavy then... army might need light one too. This also would decrease unit price 

Obvious advantage is more on smaller ship. Will it be Vgen? my bet is no, it wont. 5gen was 90-2000s we are talking about  25-30 years ahead  tech.  
If not 6gen then 6+ or 6++.

interesting question to me would be: will it be Partially unmanned" or unmanned?  drone can start with much higher overload, what is BTW better in dog-fighting

i will start posting here answers from "Future CVN" and VSTOL threads since  those should focus on factual progress of projects.  This is more like gneral discussion.

Tsavo Lion

..4 with 156 Tomahawks each

No, up to 154 CMs each.

Thanks

Tsavo 
Yeah but most of them would need to stay on the deck as there no place in the hangar for 46 aircraft.
The Nimitz class can fit 49 aircraft on the "roof" & 44 in the hangar:

Do you know how many fighters is within those 93 aircraft? BTW not really solution for Arctic. size for

I am ok if you want to leave this thread for real STOVL news only and leave all digressions for the new thread, but then I have to answer your last post there too

Gunship wrote:Last but not least is heavy then WTF create new programme and 10 years ?  why not to add hook to Su-57?

They said seven to ten years, which is too short for a new development and looks too much for putting a hook on the Su-57. So could be any of the two solutions or maybe even both.

I could think a several reasons why even just the naval version of the Su-57 could take many years, apart from pure lack of funds and priority.

For instance, as discussed the carrier vulnerability is IMO the biggest issue for STOBAR or CATOBAR planes and probably one of the biggest reasons for the discussion about STOVL. The later would be able to use a carrier even after the deck has sustained damage. Sinking a carrier is maybe not that easy, but having a leaker going through you AD is a possibility and it should not render the carrier unusable. Even a small missile in the wrong hands could catch you off guard in a low intensity conflict (the same kind of attacks we saw in Hmeimim) and would have a very big impact in your ability to conduct operations as well as a big political effect.

The high-AoA landing mode described for the Su-57 may be very useful in this regard. I can imagine RuN wanting to test this and develop the doctrine and operational details needed. If they manage to land in a very tight spot and without arresting gear, then several trajectories and deck locations cold be used for the landing, at least under emergency conditions. If arresting gear is needed, then maybe two lanes could be enabled for some redundancy at least. This would be a new path for carrier operations and would take time and focus to be implemented.

Another issues to be considered for a possible naval version of Su-57:

> Wing fold: this is a serious redesign step and would take lot of time. Alternatively and consistently with the Su-57 design for high overload and to make maximum use of the possibility of making an unmanned version, leave the wing as it is and maybe modify landing gear to rise and lower it, so planes can be stacked tighter (one plane higher, one plane lower). This would mean even another advantage vs. USN fighters both in dogfighting and BVR. I suspect the baseline design of the Su-57 is capable of sustaining more than 9 g, hence why they say it is ready for being unmanned. Reducing this with the wing fold would be a step back IMO.

> Capability for big ASMs: would be especially necessary for the naval version, and would mean also deep redesign or important modifications to the weapons bays area.

> Structure: don't really know if the structure would need reinforcements but if yes, this would demand lots of work too.

> Wing surface and aero in general: I suppose these would not need modifications but is a possibility.

> Modification of landing gear for EMALS: the same, not needed IMO but always a possibility. Or at least, a possibility MoD may not want to disregard as of yet.

All this besides corrosion resistance, navigation equipment and avionics for landing etc. So not a trivial issue at all.

b) light  VSTOL fighter
Smaller range is not really problem if you defend ship groupings and use long range weapons. Even Yak-141 had 700km radius vs F-22s 800km

USN would not place their ships in range of your weapons. They are increasing the range of their own planes and commissioning a tanker drone in short term, precisely because they are acutely aware of the problem. RuN needs to consider this and avoid USN getting the upper hand in the range battle. Russia has the advantage of better missile technology and they must not dilapidate it with a wrong naval aviation strategy.

Since Su-57 is heavy then... army might need light one too. This also would decrease unit price

Maybe. But it does not look likely right now, no news in that direction and instead we see UCAVs being developed and MiG-35 being brought into service.

Obvious advantage is more on smaller ship.

The space issue has been improved with the new hull design. At least in a relatively big carrier. On a LHD the space is critical, so as proposed a small STOVL would make sense there. Some on a normal carrier could make sense too, in order to keep a basic level of functionality with a damaged deck. But the small size and high capabilities are simply contradictory requirements and it would not make sense trying to cover them with the same plane.

Will it be Vgen? my bet is no, it wont. 5gen was 90-2000s we are talking about  25-30 years ahead  tech.  
If not 6gen then 6+ or 6++.

MoD seems to be expecting very short development time, could still be 5G. But it would be weird to me too to start in 2020 to develop 5G while rest of the world is busy with 6G.

interesting question to me would be: will it be Partially unmanned" or unmanned?  drone can start with much higher overload, what is BTW better in dog-fighting

Capability for being unmanned should be included. Wing fold as said reduces overload capability so it would need to be seen what can be achieved.

An UCAV, optionally manned and optimized for A2A could be used by VVS as complement for Su-57 and developed in STOVL version for RuN LHDs and even carriers, this is something I could see. But it would not be the best performing plane IMO, rather developed for cost / numbers / footprint and complemented by more powerful planes. Ideally you would substitute the cockpit with the lifting fan arrangement and this would help freeing space in the middle section of the plane for fuel. They (STOVL unmanned version) would be used rather in lower intensity conflict so remote control would be a possibility until full autonomous operation arrives (which may be closer than many think). Hell, I like the idea so much that I even feel like making some 3D if I find the time for it

LMFS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons. 

aircraft carrier’s air wing consists of 46 flying craft, including 12-14 Su-33 and 12-14 MiG -29K/KUB fighter jets; 

Great. The Krylov guy said that the carrier was small in displacement but allowed a "balanced" air wing, that means to me, a capable air wing capable as opposed to that of a small carrier without the internal capacity and deck size the new hull allows.
[/quote]

realistically this it would be 2x12 fighters which IMHO enough for most of tasks policing, flag waving Syria, Valenzuela, Cuba, fleet air defense but not any midways. 

LMFS wrote:

hmm not sure why you need supersonic missiles? like subsonic  LRCM pose no threat.  KinzhalsKh-22/32  are to keep only CSGs out.  14 Ohio with Tridents + 4 with 156 Tomahawks each not ot mention  Burkes are enough tthreat withour  supersonic missiles.

Of course but not of the same calibre. Long range missiles can be detected and intercepted over great distances, before they reach an extremely capable and multi-layered AD network. Subs cannot launch so many missiles near to Russia before a Russian present comes to their position at high speed, their salvos are not very fast. And of course they should defeat Russian ASW means before.

Im not really sharing your optimism,  would you think in the USA they dont know anything about EW and stealth? Every sea skiming ASh will have extremely low RCS+ EW to cover it too. 
ASW? 66 Virginias + 3 Sea Wolfs vs. 7 Yasens?  
Russian ASW is good but might not be enough.  Of course more Helos on deck means less fighters. 

Im afraid I domt see this as a piece of kaka. 

LMFS

This is simply impossible. Simple numbers issue 20-30 fighters/drones  against mix of 150-200 drones fighter form US? Even if on time when Russian deck fighter appears it will be better, US will soon have comparable only by order of magnitude more. 

That would mean one Russian CV against 4-5 CSGs? Not very realistic, check really how many of them are available at any time. I am speculating, but as said potential capabilities of a naval Su-57 against F-35C/F-18E allow in my very humble opinion to think about very lopsided exchange ratios, because USN fighters would find it very difficult to control the engagements. USN will fight to compensate this (by now only potential) gap of course but it is not easy or quick.

ekshm As you said 1 CSG is  48 fighters. 2 CSGs 96 vs. 24 on Russian "pocket CVN". Not sure why would you assume Su-57 vs F-18? When (whether) Su-57 happens FAXX will be on the other side.  Im afraid I dont share your optimism in air to air battles. 

LMFS

Deck fighters will be part of layered defense of course but IMHO the weakest one if you mean A2A protection.  Their most  important task will be sinking aircraft carriers with long range hipersonic  ASh missiles. i dont see other sense of US CSG air-2-air missions unless we look for heroic death of  pilots . 

The chance to launch the ASMs is for those who manage to win the DCA-OCA battle, that is why you need serious air superiority capabilities. And also good interception performance to shoot down enemy ASMs far from the ships. SAMs in the ships are slow to be reloaded, more expensive and better used as a last resource. A cheap AAM from a fighter can intercept a CM at a fraction of the cost and twice the range a SAM would do.

mmmmmmm what a2a fight would you expect 1,500km from US carrier? Then usage of Kiznahl is doomed to fail. 

LMFS wrote:

BTW currently  Russian deck aviation doesn't make sense at all for USN countering. 42 of  MiGs with 2012 avionics + even older Su-33 vs 1000+  F-18/F-35? to air dominance? how?

Please consider I talk about a potential capability gap, because USN retired the F-14 and committed to the F-35C until mid 2030's at least. Nowadays Russian naval fleet is irrelevant, we agree there.

Then Us can have couple of hundreds FAXX on deck and hundreds if not thousands unmanned drones /fighters Im afrid...

LMFS

not at all, with smaller number of fighters and excellent ASAD/ASh it actually makes sense very much. but ...add a bit armor and we are back to TAKRs..

Lets agree to disagree then.

Im just agreed with you and now you changed you mind? 

LMFS wrote:

BTW Kievs were armored to sustain 30kt explosion from 2000m... and keep fighting. Granits were do the trick becsue they assumed deck will be radioactive. but now.. in age of drones and autonomous robots to do service... 

A simple hole in the landing deck disables the carrier and dooms the planes in the air, unless they find other place to land. This is the worst weakness IMO for carriers in modern war. Weapons are very precise now so no need to go nuclear, just punch a hole in the landing deck and it is game over. This needs to be addressed.

unless you operate VSTOL fighters of course 

LMFS wrote:

Here we definitely disagree. Me thinks they are morons but  regards on rhetoric they are not suicidal. Its all about money after all. 

Not exactly, it is about power. Money without power goes as easy as it comes. But power allows you to get money and more importantly, to keep it. As Lavrov said, Wet is not ready to see 500 years of world domination coming to an end. Nobody wants that to happen under their guard, and much less just after they won Cold War and brought history to its culmination. They are deluded, they are not rational and they are narcissistic self-worshippers. They are not in a mental position to compromise, it will be an extremely painful awakening for them. (1) Normal healthy people have problems understanding how these beasts tick, I know.

ok i wasnt precise - not money as pile of cash but power over people, resources 


(1)    

LMFS

what's perfectly  is logical, you dont need land, resources that are radioactive. you need lands and slaves. 

Excuse me? Don't get it sorry

you dont use nukes if you need defeated country resources. That's why US so much about non nuclear war. 

LMFS

that's why Russians need to  ensure that holes or not,  nothing remins but radioactive glass surface

Not even the whole nuclear arsenal can achieve that. It is easy and cheap to dig a deep hole and stuff it with supplies, specially if you are very rich. Already happening it seems.

assuming that you survive  20 years winter and fallout for next 05 years Im not sure if you wont be envying dead

LMFS

(1)  becsue nuclear deterrent it what keeps Russia safe ? CVN for Russia is cherry on pie. Cool to have to have but nothing really vital

Maybe. But they don't want to depend on enemy blunders like those of US to survive. If ABM effort had succeed, Russia may not be there now. So they need a bigger economy and that implies power projection. They have the right too.

China and India are 40^% of worlds population. Access to SE Asia or  Africa is easy. Power projection is needed but currently is  about blocking US in hot spots or flag waving. 

LMFS wrote:

(2) Well, they said  they can have AIP, Rubezh  or Bagruzin too if I right . Cherry on pie you know.

What do you mean?

programmes were stopped. Due to lack of money, If you need to focus on essentials  a large CV might not be on table.

LMFS wrote:

(3) and here is the trick. With deck aviation numbers Russia can afford assuming air dominance makes little sense. Unless you mean flying over your fleet. or quick dashes to fire long rang missiles. 

Not dominance but deterrence.

not sure why you disagree with me then? If 20-30 fighters wont do more wont do either. Would you really assume the loosing CVN. whole grouping  + 30 fighters Russia would  sit as bet to stop? 

LMFS wrote:

(4) technology changes everything... what if in 2040s CNs will look yet different?  
Tu-123 could be launched without runway at all. What if new VSTOL will be "optionally manned" light drone fighter? 

Cool but Russia needs to go step by step in order to understand the problems and advantages of different concepts and take right decisions for the future.

True, Im actually positively excited about that  

LMFS wrote:

Is this thread actually going anywhere with real news or is it just an endless loop of the same tired discussions?

Nope, just the same tired discussions. We are somehow expecting news this spring, as a decision was to be taken about carrier concept to be pursued by RuN, on which logically the characteristics of the naval aviation depend. But better dont hold your breath.

no worries I opened  separate thread to continue our discussions 

GunshipDemocracy wrote:realistically this it would be 2x12 fighters which IMHO enough for most of tasks policing, flag waving Syria, Valenzuela, Cuba, fleet air defense but not any midways. 

The Midway argument does not say much to me to be honest. I understand roles and missions better than vague allusions. Naval aviation exists and will continue to do so, confrontations between groups of naval aviation are entirely possible in the future IMO, or at least need to be covered by the different militaries to ensure deterrence and hence avoid an actual war.

Im not really sharing your optimism,  would you think in the USA they dont know anything about EW and stealth? Every sea skiming ASh will have extremely low RCS+ EW to cover it too. 

Airborne radars can take care of low flying missiles. Plus detecting the launching positions is easy. I dont think US would deploy EW assets close to Russia and hope they will survive long enough to cover the whole CMs missile flight, that does not look like having a happy ending for them. Stand off jamming against S-400? Or who would deploy the MALD close enough to Russia

ASW? 66 Virginias + 3 Sea Wolfs vs. 7 Yasens?  

SSNs have to take care of Russian SSBN too. But of course USN has superiority in numbers here, this is clear. Close to Russia is not only a game of nuclear subs, Russian diesels are there too.

Im afraid I domt see this as a piece of kaka. 

A piece of kaka?

ekshm As you said 1 CSG is  48 fighters. 2 CSGs 96 vs. 24 on Russian "pocket CVN". Not sure why would you assume Su-57 vs F-18? When (whether) Su-57 happens FAXX will be on the other side.  Im afraid I dont share your optimism in air to air battles. 

Su-57 is entering service this year. NGAD is a drawing. There are 10 to 15 years min between such development points, in the US case normally way more, despite them not accepting this reality and wanting now development cycles of two years I draw your attention to the point that what they are demanding is little short of a war-time effort so the concern must be very big. But technically there is no way you can claim NGAD will come at the same time than Su-57K, unless you think Russia is just going to voluntarily wait for US to catch up. They are almost a generation apart. They want so many things at the same time that they will need to compromise. They want a new frigate. They want 350 vessels. They need new SAMs and ABM. They want more Ford class CVNs. They want more availability for their fighters. They want UCAV and tankers. They are ordering more F-18s Most probably they will have to extend their live and optimize F-35C with VCEs before getting NGAD really deployed close to 2040. And that assuming the program will get through, which I think is something they are definitely going to need. The other option as said is that they abandon those pipe dreams about 6G with lasers and all that and make and advanced 5G as the Su-57 but with some improvements. That would be actually sensible so they would need to be really concerned to take such a decision

mmmmmmm what a2a fight would you expect 1,500km from US carrier? Then usage of Kiznahl is doomed to fail. 

Man, they are explicitly saying they need more range due to increased threat level and are introducing MQ-25 asap. They are set to get bigger operational radius for their naval fighters and hence longer ranged CAP and interception missions in order to catch the launchers before the Kinzhals an Zircons/GZURs are released, otherwise what can they do? Just jump into their lifeboats as soon as a hypersonic ASM carrier flies into launching range? They would not have time even to evacuate the ships if they don't act proactively

Then Us can have couple of hundreds FAXX on deck and hundreds if not thousands unmanned drones /fighters Im afrid...

In the real world they are decommissioning Harry Truman CVN. They have the dollar printing machine yes, but they also have problems of their own. Military is not like virtual finance, real work, real money and real capabilities are needed. It will take time for them to deploy F-35C to start with, much more even to get NGAD operational. And by then US economy may not be the first even in GDP terms and their ability to finance more crap may have suffered a hit. From 1990's to now the change has been massive and it is even accelerating. So I don't agree US has no constrains for their military development.

unless you operate VSTOL fighters of course 

They would be restricted too in their operation but as said before this is one of their main points, no question

you dont use nukes if you need defeated country resources. That's why US so much about non nuclear war. 

First priority for West is crushing their rivals. Then loot what is left. Since wealth is relative, it does not matter whether you loot more or less than before the war. Important is that the other bastards are dead... or at least that is how I understand them. The limitations of morality are not their problem.

assuming that you survive  20 years winter and fallout for next 05 years Im not sure if you wont be envying dead

Again, normal people would do as you say. But guys that crave for power and have been bred like that for generations only want to be the last ones to laugh.

programmes were stopped. Due to lack of money, If you need to focus on essentials  a large CV might not be on table.

Completely possible, we will see.

not sure why you disagree with me then?

Because you said dominance and that is not the goal realistically. The idea is that the other side cannot be confident in attacking you with no or low costs. So a qualitative edge rather than quantitative is needed. But that means also some other aircraft on board like AWACS, tankers etc, so a minimum size and capabilities are required of your carrier that cannot be crammed into a pocket carrier in an operatively effective way.

Would you really assume the loosing CVN. whole grouping  + 30 fighters Russia would  sit as bet to stop?

 
Not sure what you mean.

This post was to stay on VSTOL but OK let's leave this VSOTL to progtamme milestones and news.

LMFS wrote:

Gunship wrote:Last but not least is heavy then WTF create new programme and 10 years ?  why not to add hook to Su-57?

They said seven to ten years, which is too short for a new development and looks too much for putting a hook on the Su-57. So could be any of the two solutions or maybe even both.

DAT would be fuckin' crazy      

L wrote: (1)I could think a several reasons why even just the naval version of the Su-57 could take many years, apart from pure lack of funds and priority.

(3) For instance, as discussed the carrier vulnerability is IMO the biggest issue for STOBAR or CATOBAR planes and probably one of the biggest reasons for the discussion about STOVL. The later would be able to use a carrier even after the deck has sustained damage. Sinking a carrier is maybe not that easy, but having a leaker going through you AD is a possibility and it should not render the carrier unusable. Even a small missile in the wrong hands could catch you off guard in a low intensity conflict (the same kind of attacks we saw in Hmeimim) and would have a very big impact in your ability to conduct operations as well as a big political effect.


(2) The high-AoA landing mode described for the Su-57 may be very useful in this regard. I can imagine RuN wanting to test this and develop the doctrine and operational details needed. If they manage to land in a very tight spot and without arresting gear, then several trajectories and deck locations cold be used for the landing, at least under emergency conditions. If arresting gear is needed, then maybe two lanes could be enabled for some redundancy at least. This would be a new path for carrier operations and would take time and focus to be implemented.

(1) could be, yet 7-10 years and talk about VSTOL programme specially to add hook?!
BTW Borisov talking about project
Borisov stressed that this is about creating a new aircraft, and not about developing on the basis of some existing machine.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

(2) Good idea, Su-57 as test-bed for VSTOl deck doctrine. Russians to me always were focused on STOL capabilities and usage of not really prepared aerodromes

(3) good point , Sir

L wrote:Another issues to be considered for a possible naval version of Su-57:

> Wing fold: this is a serious redesign step and would take lot of time. Alternatively and consistently with the Su-57 design for high overload and to make maximum use of the possibility of making an unmanned version, leave the wing as it is and maybe modify landing gear to rise and lower it, so planes can be stacked tighter (one plane higher, one plane lower). This would mean even another advantage vs. USN fighters both in dogfighting and BVR. I suspect the baseline design of the Su-57 is capable of sustaining more than 9 g, hence why they say it is ready for being unmanned. Reducing this with the wing fold would be a step back IMO.

> Capability for big ASMs: would be especially necessary for the naval version, and would mean also deep redesign or important modifications to the weapons bays area.

> Structure: don't really know if the structure would need reinforcements but if yes, this would demand lots of work too.

> Wing surface and aero in general: I suppose these would not need modifications but is a possibility.

> Modification of landing gear for EMALS: the same, not needed IMO but always a possibility. Or at least, a possibility MoD may not want to disregard as of yet.

All this besides corrosion resistance, navigation equipment and avionics for landing etc. So not a trivial issue at all.

Hard to disagree with most but  your optimism about upper hand in BVR and dog-fighting. IMHO you are very just extrapolating current status well in 2030s. I'd prefer assume you meet opponent on same level. Was really Su-33 outclassing  F-14?

L wrote:

b) light  VSTOL fighter
Smaller range is not really problem if you defend ship groupings and use long range weapons. Even Yak-141 had 700km radius vs F-22s 800km

(1) USN would not place their ships in range of your weapons. They are increasing the range of their own planes and commissioning a tanker drone in short term, precisely because they are acutely aware of the problem. RuN needs to consider this and avoid USN getting the upper hand in the range battle. Russia has the advantage of better missile technology and they must not dilapidate it with a wrong naval aviation strategy.

Then you mean USN keeping CSGs 2,500-3,000 away from Russian ships is too close?  when  Caracas  -  Tampa is 2,530 km and Arkhangelsk - Reykjavik - 2,897km away.
Are o we talking about the same?

1,000km radius of light fighter add 1,500km GZUR  and et voila you have CSG not even passing Island . From Arkhangelsk..



Frankly Im Not sure what you mean by upper hand with this. What is sense in having  ~half of number of  long  range fighters which  actually never use this range.  
Unless you keep on fighting with Greenland's air force. From CVN harbored in Arkhangelsk


Distance from Greenland to Arkhangelsk - 3,239 km. Do you really need 3000km radius?! BTW  Su-33 specs Russian wiki says: 2 hours patrolling 250km from ships...although to radius is ,1500km
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/133442.html

L wrote:

Since Su-57 is heavy then... army might need light one too. This also would decrease unit price

Maybe. But it does not look likely right now, no news in that direction and instead we see UCAVs being developed and MiG-35 being brought into service.

UCAVS were long time planned and will be part both of deck aviation completing  fighters. Either on land or sea.  

Cough cough MiG-35? do you mean those 6 ordered till 2023 with no conformation wrt  AESA radars? Let me remain skeptical about MiG-35  as a perspective deck fighter.
Yes it's a decent one and  good for export for counties which look for decent budget fighter. Not necessarily new design . Unless there will be an imminent danger of major war or huge problems with VSTOL I dont see it as mass  fighter for RuAF, RuN.

L wrote:

Obvious advantage is more on smaller ship.

The space issue has been improved with the new hull design. At least in a relatively big carrier. On a LHD the space is critical, so as proposed a small STOVL would make sense there. Some on a normal carrier could make sense too, in order to keep a basic level of functionality with a damaged deck. But the small size and high capabilities are simply contradictory requirements and it would not make sense trying to cover them with the same plane.

radius and  payload?  OK then perhaps  we can use MiG-35 as a reference. How many times higher payload or range would you expect form high performance fighter ?

L wrote:

Will it be Vgen? my bet is no, it wont. 5gen was 90-2000s we are talking about  25-30 years ahead  tech.  
If not 6gen then 5+ or 5++.

+++

interesting question to me would be: will it be Partially unmanned" or unmanned?  drone can start with much higher overload, what is BTW better in dog-fighting

Capability for being unmanned should be included. Wing fold as said reduces overload capability so it would need to be seen what can be achieved.
MoD seems to be expecting very short development time, could still be 5G. But it would be weird to me too to start in 2020 to develop 5G while rest of the world is busy with 6G.

"distributed" radars -checked
stealth cover checked
Izd 30 engine checked (5+?)
autonomous fly mode (under development)
DEW under development

To me looks like 6gen is rather closer then distant option

L wrote:An UCAV, optionally manned and optimized for A2A could be used by VVS as complement for Su-57 and developed in STOVL version for RuN LHDs and even carriers, this is something I could see. But it would not be the best performing plane IMO, rather developed for cost / numbers / footprint and complemented by more powerful planes. Ideally you would substitute the cockpit with the lifting fan arrangement and this would help freeing space in the middle section of the plane for fuel. They (STOVL unmanned version) would be used rather in lower intensity conflict so remote control would be a possibility until full autonomous operation arrives (which may be closer than many think). Hell, I like the idea so much that I even feel like making some 3D if I find the time for it

Hmmm you say low performance? fighting with say continuous 15-20g instead of  6-9g before pilot fades out? making instant decision not waiting 0,5 or 1 second? do you relly think pilot will be focusing DEW on incoming missile?  
Simply unmanned  mode is future of all fighters. You of course can be skeptical but what I can see that the  progress is enormous. Algorithms are improved almost on  daily basis, processing power expanding.

of course your  3d model is welcome. I agree to be your fiercest critic  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:DAT would be fuckin' crazy      

Has already happened in Soviet times and happens today, with two naval fighters and no carrier  
It could be done as explained in my last post in a way that is not a complete waste

BTW Borisov talking about project
Borisov stressed that this is about creating a new aircraft, and not about developing on the basis of some existing machine.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

That would probably mean that an eventual STOVL would not be a reheated Yak-141

(2) Good idea, Su-57 as test-bed for VSTOl deck doctrine. Russians to me always were focused on STOL capabilities and usage of not really prepared aerodromes

Well, the Su-57 would not be the test bed for STOVL doctrine but rather the STOL solution itself. Borisov mentioned such as one of the possibilities.

Hard to disagree with most but  your optimism about upper hand in BVR and dog-fighting. IMHO you are very just extrapolating current status well in 2030s. I'd prefer assume you meet opponent on same level. Was really Su-33 outclassing  F-14?

There is always that risk and in the end how do you know what developments are going to happen and when? I base my expectation in:

> Availability of the base model for a Su-57K. Feasibility as naval model confirmed. News about extreme STOL performance confirmed. This allows short term development if needed.
> Dynamic capabilities of the Su-57 unattainable for F-35 and F-18. VCE is a distinct possibility IMO. Long range, supercruise, extreme agility all beyond reach for USN in the near term.
> Capability to carry oversized loads (ASMs) and long range AA missiles (not existing and in any case bays on F-35 are limited) suboptimal for USN in the near to medium term at least.

So as said from mid 2020 to mid 2030 I would expect RuN to have a window of opportunity, if they want to catch it and if the manage to put the rest of their navy at that level. It is of no use to have the best naval fighter in the world and not having a carrier or not having frigates for the escort, obviously. So they need to see what is realistic and what yields gains for them in practical terms. If they don't have big interests abroad there will be no big gains either.

US will counter? Of course, but as said they don't have an air platform that can truly compete now or in the near to medium term. Missiles will be improved with the introduction of faster, longer ranged designs. But there is a big gap to close so it will take time and Russia will keep moving too, with maybe hypersonic missiles for A2A roles or ASMs capable of being carried in the weapons bays. If the engine is indeed VCE the Su-57 could IMHO be able to fly close to 2 M (F-22 reportedly does 1.8 M with F119s fixed BPR=0.3 and apparently worse area ruling) in dry settings and that would be a nightmare to intercept for F-35s or F-18s. The bigger weapons bays and kinematics of the plane are always going to be an advantage and allow acting at longer ranges with more lethal missiles while remaining difficult to engage. It is also much better as an interceptor, which will be needed to shoot down massive attacks with ASMs, either subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic when they come to US side. Also it is a bigger platform, better suited for DEWs if they eventually are used for air fights or missile interception. And it is also thought for unmanned operation. So it has a lot of reserve for staying capable and being upgraded. It is clearly a winning bet IMO.

Then you mean USN keeping CSGs 2,500-3,000 away from Russian ships is too close?  when  Caracas  -  Tampa is 2,530 km and Arkhangelsk - Reykjavik - 2,897km away.
Are o we talking about the same?

Wait a second: what is the current range of Russian supersonic ASMs that can be used in remote areas (no Tu-22, no MiG-31)? Onyx or Kalibr are 500-600 km, maybe more but in that ballpark. This will improve with Zircon to ca. 1000 km but by now we are not even close to those values. No problem for USN to remain outside those ranges and attack you until you deplete your defences. What kind of strategy would be that, sending your fleet to die and/or risking it all to an escalation that can get nuclear?

1,000km radius of light fighter add 1,500km GZUR  and et voila you have CSG not even passing Island . From Arkhangelsk..

None of that is available. What is the compatibility of GZUR with what light fighter? You are putting a lot of faith in GZUR and taking its figures and even its development in short term for granted, that is not a starting point I can really share sorry... but in case it would be available in such conditions, you should consider USN would launch their fighters with IFR support to catch you before you launch. That is why they are going for tankers now and for bigger platforms in the future. And a light fighter with less range, payload and essentially any other metric would also be less robust in OCA role. But it would be an option too if the compromise is deemed worth it.

Frankly Im Not sure what you mean by upper hand with this. What is sense in having  ~half of number of  long  range fighters which  actually never use this range.  
Unless you keep on fighting with Greenland's air force. From CVN harbored in Arkhangelsk

No, not at all. Range means endurance. Capability to go low-high as needed, to carry payload, to dash and to dogfight. Such things deplete your tanks very fast, no need to go to the end of the world. Look real operational radius in low-low-low profile, or real CAP missions profiles. They look way less impressive than datasheet values you know...

There was a very nice example from Syria where Su-34s were going to attack some US vetted jihadists and F-18s were sent to deter them. The Sukhois just turned around, waited for the US fighters to deplete their tanks and returned to finish the mission when the F-18s went to refuel... such things count too  

Distance from Greenland to Arkhangelsk - 3,239 km. Do you really need 3000km radius?! BTW  Su-33 specs Russian wiki says: 2 hours patrolling 250km from ships...although to radius is ,1500km
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/133442.html

Exactly what I mean above. That CAP radius is nothing impressive is it? Imagine the number of fighters and their needed range if you have to cover against air launched ASMs with 1000 km range. In fact, both the size of your fighters and the size of your carrier will need to grow in the future!

UCAVS were long time planned and will be part both of deck aviation completing  fighters. Either on land or sea.

 
What I mean is that the traditional hi-low mix gets the "low" part fighters substituted with UCAVs, which are cheaper and more useful. And they allow to compensate for each time more sophisticated, expensive and scarce high-end fighters ($300 million/unit estimated already now for PCA)

Cough cough MiG-35? do you mean those 6 ordered till 2023 with no conformation wrt  AESA radars? Let me remain skeptical about MiG-35  as a perspective deck fighter.

No, I mean for VVS.

Yes it's a decent one and  good for export for counties which look for decent budget fighter. Not necessarily new design . Unless there will be an imminent danger of major war or huge problems with VSTOL I dont see it as mass  fighter for RuAF, RuN.

Don't know how many they will produce for VVS. Manturov was asked this few days ago and he remained mum...

radius and  payload?  OK then perhaps  we can use MiG-35 as a reference. How many times higher payload or range would you expect form high performance fighter ?

MiG-29/35 is a medium fighter, even when it is very compact in folded position what you would like to have on a LHD would be even smaller, as discussed you are not going to send it to face sophisticated ADs or modern air forces so the mere fact of having a fighter jet is a massive improvement in regards to helicopters. It allows to do decent CAP. Strike above reach of MANPADS and AAA. Take out time critical targets and carry heavy ordnance among many other things. So even less capability than MiG-35 would be quite ok as support for a expeditionary force.

On the other hand, deterring a CSG attack on your fleet demands either big numbers of high capability or rather both, enough at least to put some fear in the hearts of the enemy (or uncertainty in their planers). So you need every bit of performance you can get. It is not a fixed range or payload but anything that allows you to have a competitive edge. Considering the opponent is actively trying to get that edge themselves in turn and state of the art is similar for both, size and design philosophy of the platform are of the utmost relevance. Therefore USN and USAF are going for long range, highly supersonic platforms as the basis of 6G, because they see their current ones are crippled by the philosophy under they were designed and no practical technological improvement is going to compensate for that.

To me looks like 6gen is rather closer then distant option

Generations are defined by a marked jump in performance and design philosophy, and many of the things you say are being implemented in 5G already. So it is not clear to me. I guess many so called 6G designs will be just late 5G in disguise. But I am not very interested in the marketing side of this, for a big jump in capability you need still more technological improvements and then to get them reliable and cheap enough for deployment, and then to learn to operate with them. It will take time.

Hmmm you say low performance? fighting with say continuous 15-20g instead of  6-9g before pilot fades out?

No naval fighter with fold wing takes more than 8 g that I know, so it is unclear to me what the UCAV could be capable of.

making instant decision not waiting 0,5 or 1 second? do you relly think pilot will be focusing DEW on incoming missile?  
Simply unmanned  mode is future of all fighters. You of course can be skeptical but what I can see that the  progress is enormous. Algorithms are improved almost on  daily basis, processing power expanding.

No, I am not sceptical about UCAVs, sadly I know enough about technology to understand we stand no chance against AI, especially in such fields. I agree it can come before many think, but I perceive a certain resistance or mistrust to go 100% autonomous at the time being. This may delay the adoption but not much, once the capabilities are clear nobody will stop the broad substitution of manned with unmanned platforms.

of course your  3d model is welcome. I agree to be your fiercest critic  

Thanks??

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:realistically this it would be 2x12 fighters which IMHO enough for most of tasks policing, flag waving Syria, Valenzuela, Cuba, fleet air defense but not any midways. 

The Midway argument does not say much to me to be honest. (1) I understand roles and missions better than vague allusions. Naval aviation exists and will continue to do so, (2) confrontations between groups of naval aviation are entirely possible in the future IMO, or at least need to be covered by the different militaries to ensure deterrence and hence avoid an actual war.

(1)Here is scenario. There will be no such confrontation between RuN and nay other navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

USA
3 fleet carriers
7 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
15 destroyers
233 carrier-based aircraft
127 land-based aircraft
16 submarines[1]


Japan
1st Carrier Striking Force:
4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers
248 carrier-based aircraft[2]
16 floatplanes

(2) Air to air navy battles didnt happen since 1945, you can believe of course it will happen but preparation to something with probability close to 0 is an expensive sport. There wil be no US activity to shoot 20 Russian fighters and sinkign ship without immediate nuclear retaliation. Why in Syria no fighter was actually used by Russians nor any US fighter ever tried to shoot Russian one ?

Russian could move to Syria by order of magnitude more fighters. Yet they didnt, would you suggest Russian MoD didn't know what they were doing? There were 3 CSGs around 2 in Persian gulf and 1 Mediterranean AFAIR
Small iicidents like 1-2-1 fighter can always happen but for this 20-30 fighters/drones is more then enough.

L wrote:

Im not really sharing your optimism,  would you think in the USA they dont know anything about EW and stealth? Every sea skiming ASh will have extremely low RCS+ EW to cover it too. 

Airborne radars can take care of low flying missiles. Plus detecting the launching positions is easy. I dont think US would deploy EW assets close to Russia and hope they will survive long enough to cover the whole CMs missile flight, that does not look like having a happy ending for them. Stand off jamming against S-400? Or who would deploy the MALD close enough to Russia  

We are talking about now or in 10-15 years? US didnt have to develop EW against Russian after 90s. Now they do and will. In 2020 Pentagram's budget grows to $750Bn.
I dont share your optimism

L wrote:
(1)Su-57 is entering service this year. NGAD is a drawing. There are 10 to 15 years min between such development points, in the US case normally way more, despite them not accepting this reality and wanting now development cycles of two years    I draw your attention to the point that what they are demanding is little short of a war-time effort so the concern must be very big. But technically (2) there is no way you can claim NGAD will come at the same time than Su-57K, unless you think Russia is just going to voluntarily wait for US to catch up. (3) They are almost a generation apart. (4)They want so many things at the same time that they will need to compromise. They want a new frigate. They want 350 vessels. They need new SAMs and ABM. They want more Ford class CVNs. They want more availability for their fighters. They want UCAV and tankers. They are ordering more F-18s Most probably they will have to extend their live and optimize F-35C with VCEs before getting NGAD really deployed close to 2040. And that assuming the program will get through, which I think is something they are definitely going to need. The other option as said is that they abandon those pipe dreams about (5) 6G with lasers and all that and make and advanced 5G as the Su-57 but with some improvements. That would be actually sensible so they would need to be really concerned to take such a decision  

(1) 15 Su-57 till 2023? and till 2030

(2) Su-57k is not even on drawing broad or ordered, it is only in form of plastic models

(3) That's why Russia has started VSTOL programme

(4) In 2020 Pentagram's budget grows to $750Bn

(5) 5g with some improvement is actually 6g

L wrote:

mmmmmmm what a2a fight would you expect 1,500km from US carrier? Then usage of Kiznahl is doomed to fail. 

Man, they are explicitly saying they need more range due to increased threat level and are introducing MQ-25 asap. They are set to get bigger operational radius for their naval fighters and hence longer ranged CAP  and interception missions in order to catch the launchers before the Kinzhals an Zircons/GZURs are released, otherwise what can they do? Just jump into their lifeboats as soon as a hypersonic ASM carrier flies into launching range? They would not have time even to evacuate the ships if they don't act proactively  

so building hundreds of fighters is supposed to be cheaper for Russians then just add 1000km range to Kiznhal or other missiles?

L wrote:

Then Us can have couple of hundreds FAXX on deck and hundreds if not thousands unmanned drones /fighters Im afrid...

In the real world they are decommissioning Harry Truman CVN. They have the dollar printing machine yes, but they also have problems of their own. Military is not like virtual finance, real work, real money and real capabilities are needed. It will take time for them to deploy F-35C to start with, much more even to get NGAD operational. And by then US economy may not be the first even in GDP terms and their ability to finance more crap may have suffered a hit. From 1990's to now the change has been massive and it is even accelerating. So I don't agree US has no constrains for their military development.

The only chance for Russia is to live to moment USA gets relatively weaker wrt to other economic powerhouses. They have constrains but yet $750B and more is not a problem to USA. Officially Russian MoD budget $48B so 15 times less. Realistically it is closer $100-120B so still 6-7 times less.

LMFS wrote:

you dont use nukes if you need defeated country resources. That's why US so much about non nuclear war. 

First priority for West is crushing their rivals. Then loot what is left. Since wealth is relative, it does not matter whether you loot more or less than before the war. Important is that the other bastards are dead... or at least that is how I understand them. The limitations of morality are not their problem.

Morality and capitalism| ? cmon . I disagree that destroying resources is not important otherwise Iraq or vEmzuel were long time ago nuked.

LMFS wrote:

not sure why you disagree with me then?

Because you said dominance and that is not the goal realistically. The idea is that the other side cannot be confident in attacking you with no or low costs. So a qualitative edge rather than quantitative is needed. But that means also some other aircraft on board like AWACS, tankers etc, so a minimum size and capabilities are required of your carrier that cannot be crammed into a pocket carrier in an operatively effective way.

Could you make up your mind, please? So now Krylovs" pocket CV" is too small?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:(2) Su-57k is not even on drawing broad or ordered, it is only in form of plastic models

You say it would only need to put a hook and now it is so far in the distant future. If needed it can be done in short time, that is the bottomline

(5)  5g with some improvement is actually 6g      

6G is whatever some moron in the West decides so better to leave it up to them.

so building hundreds of fighters is supposed to be cheaper for Russians then just add 1000km range to Kiznhal or other missiles?      

Maybe they should put conventionally-tipped SRBMs/IRBMs on board of some special vessels and then no carriers and no STOVL would be needed, but you would not like that would you?

I disagree that destroying resources is not important otherwise Iraq or vEmzuel were long time ago nuked.

They are not rivals for them but prey...

Could you make up your mind, please? So now Krylovs" pocket CV"  is too small?    

That is not a pocket carrier! It is somehow light but has a deck and airwing bigger than that of the Kuznetsov... I mean something really smaller like 25 kT. In any case a little bigger than the Shtorm light would be better.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:DAT would be fuckin' crazy      

Has already happened in Soviet times and happens today, with two naval fighters and no carrier  
It could be done as explained in my last post in a way that is not a complete waste

it is, Im afraid, unless you got really huge budget. Not Russia case anyway

L wrote:

BTW Borisov talking about project
Borisov stressed that this is about creating a new aircraft, and not about developing on the basis of some existing machine.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

That would probably mean that an eventual STOVL would not be a reheated Yak-141

"refreshing" 30yo design?
This would be definitely waste of money.

L wrote:

(2) Good idea, Su-57 as test-bed for VSTOl deck doctrine. Russians to me always were focused on STOL capabilities and usage of not really prepared aerodromes

Well, the Su-57 would not be the test bed for STOVL doctrine but rather the STOL solution itself. Borisov mentioned such as one of the possibilities.

he actually said no Yak but a new fighter, not hook added to existing one

L wrote:

Hard to disagree with most but  your optimism about upper hand in BVR and dog-fighting. IMHO you are very just extrapolating current status well in 2030s. I'd prefer assume you meet opponent on same level. Was really Su-33 outclassing  F-14?

There is always that risk and in the end how do you know what developments are going to happen and when? I base my expectation in:

hmm I still appreciate answer on my question was Su-33 outclassing F-14? or MiG-29k F-18 SH?

L wrote:
So as said from mid 2020 to mid 2030 I would expect RuN to have a window of opportunity, if they want to catch it and if the manage to put the rest of their navy at that level. It is of no use to have the best naval fighter in the world and not having a carrier or not having frigates for the escort, obviously. So they need to see what is realistic and what yields gains for them in practical terms. If they don't have big interests abroad there will be no big gains either.

not in 10 years. CVN Project was not even selected so only option is renovated Kuz. Destroyers, frigates seem to be on their way already, no new Cv tho. BTW Africa in most part is available without need for CV's so only Latin America is left.

L wrote:US will counter? Of course, but as said they don't have an air platform that can truly compete now or in the near to medium term. Missiles will be improved with the introduction of faster, longer ranged designs.{}

ok we disagree here you seem to see relativistic timeline. Russia suddenly in beginning of 2020s will have CVNs with Su-57k. And USA cannot cope with new missiles nor fighters development.

L wrote:

Then you mean USN keeping CSGs 2,500-3,000 away from Russian ships is too close?  when  Caracas  -  Tampa is 2,530 km and Arkhangelsk - Reykjavik - 2,897km away.
Are o we talking about the same?

Wait a second: what is the current range of Russian supersonic ASMs that can be used in remote areas (no Tu-22, no MiG-31)? Onyx or Kalibr are 500-600 km, maybe more but in that ballpark. This will improve with Zircon to ca. 1000 km but by now we are not even close to those values. No problem for USN to remain outside those ranges and attack you until you deplete your defences. What kind of strategy would be that, sending your fleet to die and/or risking it all to an escalation that can get nuclear?

1) Not sure why you from one hand are talking about not planned Su-57k but forgetting that work on airborne hypersonci missiles is ongoing. Gruz not gzur range 1,500km is not coincidence I think.

2) You are strangely focused on small remote US/Russian wars. Any US attack on Russian ships is gonna end up nuclear, that's why Syria 8 fighters were enough. This has been working since 1949.
Proxies, terrorists can of course declare even full scale wars. You need means to subdue them. Thets why you have ships with 100s of missiles around.

L wrote:

1,000km radius of light fighter add 1,500km GZUR  and et voila you have CSG not even passing Island . From Arkhangelsk..

None of that is available. What is the compatibility of GZUR with what light fighter? You are putting a lot of faith in GZUR and taking its figures and even its development in short term for granted, that is not a starting point I can really share sorry... but in case it would be available in such conditions, you should consider USN would launch their fighters with IFR support to catch you before you launch. That is why they are going for tankers now and for bigger platforms in the future. And a light fighter with less range, payload and essentially any other metric would also be less robust in OCA role. But it would be an option too if the compromise is deemed worth it.

1) Neither Russian CVN nor US log range missiles/fighters are available

2) Jane's claimed development of GZUR is ongoing and will be light class (they say 1,500kg) .

3) Regardless of name range are not accidental. Russian deck fighters dont have to fly 1000kms why not 200-300 to keep Us on 2000km radius? Besides with fairly light missile why not to use either stealth or Tu-123 extremely fast drone?

L wrote:

Frankly Im Not sure what you mean by upper hand with this. What is sense in having  ~half of number of  long  range fighters which  actually never use this range.  
Unless you keep on fighting with Greenland's air force. From CVN harbored in Arkhangelsk

No, not at all. Range means endurance. Capability to go low-high as needed, to carry payload, to dash and to dogfight. Such things deplete your tanks very fast, no need to go to the end of the world. Look real operational radius in low-low-low profile, or real CAP missions profiles. They look way less impressive than datasheet values you know...

yet still light fighters exist...could you tell me why?

L wrote:
There was a very nice example from Syria where Su-34s were going to attack some US vetted jihadists and F-18s were sent to deter them. The Sukhois just turned around, waited for the US fighters to deplete their tanks and returned to finish the mission when the F-18s went to refuel... such things count too  

which is the prefect example of real game of deterrence, 1 F-18 couple of bombers Su-34... not even one Russian fighter called

L wrote:

Distance from Greenland to Arkhangelsk - 3,239 km. Do you really need 3000km radius?! BTW  Su-33 specs Russian wiki says: 2 hours patrolling 250km from ships...although to radius is ,1500km
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/133442.html

Exactly what I mean above. That CAP radius is nothing impressive is it? Imagine the number of fighters and their needed range if you have to cover against air launched ASMs with 1000 km range. In fact, both the size of your fighters and the size of your carrier will need to grow in the future!

hmmm if they carried dumb bombs and dive bombing would have needed even more range. Much cheaper to build longer range missiles tho. If more range is needed then why to stop on 1,500km?

L wrote:

UCAVS were long time planned and will be part both of deck aviation completing  fighters. Either on land or sea.

 
What I mean is that the traditional hi-low mix gets the "low" part fighters substituted with UCAVs, which are cheaper and more useful. And they allow to compensate for each time more sophisticated, expensive and scarce high-end fighters ($300 million/unit estimated already now for PCA)

I dont believe in those specialists until i see fighter with price tag. True US can use tens of drones similar to improved QX222 but Russia can do this as well. What if they won need deck at all?

L wrote:

Cough cough MiG-35? do you mean those 6 ordered till 2023 with no conformation wrt  AESA radars? Let me remain skeptical about MiG-35  as a perspective deck fighter.

No, I mean for VVS.

wait so for deck you say heavy fighter is must but for VKS suddenly light is ok ?

L wrote:

Yes it's a decent one and  good for export for counties which look for decent budget fighter. Not necessarily new design . Unless there will be an imminent danger of major war or huge problems with VSTOL I dont see it as mass  fighter for RuAF, RuN.

Don't know how many they will produce for VVS. Manturov was asked this few days ago and he remained mum...

what answer would you expect before Indian tender? especially if there are no real plans for MiG-35 for VKS?

L wrote:

radius and  payload?  OK then perhaps  we can use MiG-35 as a reference. How many times higher payload or range would you expect form high performance fighter ?

MiG-29/35 is a medium fighter, even when it is very compact in folded position what you would like to have on a LHD would be even smaller, as discussed you are not going to send it to face sophisticated ADs or modern air forces so the mere fact of having a fighter jet is a massive improvement in regards to helicopters. It allows to do decent CAP. Strike above reach of MANPADS and AAA. Take out time critical targets and carry heavy ordnance among many other things. So even less capability than MiG-35 would be quite ok as support for a expeditionary force.

Ekhm so fighter with range and payload of light fighter us now medium and ok? hmmm if Russia is going to use expeditionary ship in CV mode then it will be equipped as such. Even with some landing capabilities. Unless battle/landing Mgmt systems developed for Kuz and AWACS that is planned for this SAP will be stored on land base.

L wrote:On the other hand, deterring a CSG attack on your fleet

you dont need to deter WW3, you need 30 mins till Avangard comes.

L wrote:

To me looks like 6gen is rather closer then distant option

Generations are defined by a marked jump in performance and design philosophy, and many of the things you say are being implemented in 5G already. So it is not clear to me. I guess many so called 6G designs will be just late 5G in disguise. But I am not very interested in the marketing side of this, for a big jump in capability you need still more technological improvements and then to get them reliable and cheap enough for deployment, and then to learn to operate with them. It will take time.

~20years between both fighters is not enough?

L wrote:

Hmmm you say low performance? fighting with say continuous 15-20g instead of  6-9g before pilot fades out?

No naval fighter with fold wing takes more than 8 g that I know, so it is unclear to me what the UCAV could be capable of.

because you know only current ones?

LMFS wrote:

making instant decision not waiting 0,5 or 1 second? do you relly think pilot will be focusing DEW on incoming missile?  
Simply unmanned  mode is future of all fighters. You of course can be skeptical but what I can see that the  progress is enormous. Algorithms are improved almost on  daily basis, processing power expanding.

No, I am not sceptical about UCAVs, sadly I know enough about technology to understand we stand no chance against AI, especially in such fields. I agree it can come before many think, but I perceive a certain resistance or mistrust to go 100% autonomous at the time being. This may delay the adoption but not much, once the capabilities are clear nobody will stop the broad substitution of manned with unmanned platforms.

Glad we agree here nonetheless sad future indeed

L wrote:

of course your  3d model is welcome. I agree to be your fiercest critic  

Thanks??

so you'd prefer flattering GB? c'mon

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:(2) Su-57k is not even on drawing broad or ordered, it is only in form of plastic models

You say it would only need to put a hook and now it is so far in the distant future. If needed it can be done in short time, that is the bottomline

then we agree, as risk mitigation for other projects.

LMFS wrote:

(5)  5g with some improvement is actually 6g      

6G is whatever some moron in the West decides so better to leave it up to them.

KRET was talking about Russian 6gen fighter then KRET are also morons?

LMFS wrote:

so building hundreds of fighters is supposed to be cheaper for Russians then just add 1000km range to Kiznhal or other missiles?      

Maybe they should put conventionally-tipped SRBMs/IRBMs on board of some special vessels and then no carriers and no STOVL would be needed, but you would not like that would you?    

oh how good you are getting that! Russia generally decided to focus on long range precision weapons. Fighter also can carry standoff missiles is it really needed for ship defenses? Of course can defend ships with a bit longer range then AAD missiles.

L wrote:

I disagree that destroying resources is not important otherwise Iraq or vEmzuel were long time ago nuked.

They are not rivals for them but prey...

soils of war to me. Same as Russian Siberia or Arctic.

LMFS wrote:

Could you make up your mind, please? So now Krylovs" pocket CV"  is too small?    

That is not a pocket carrier! It is somehow light but has a deck and airwing bigger than that of the Kuznetsov... I mean something really smaller like 25 kT. In any case a little bigger than the Shtorm light would be better.

ekhm bigger by 2 fighters in max config? My bet is as you know 20-30 fighters/ 40-50ktons. Of course this is only my guess. I need to call VVP to ensure Im right again

I dont think 20kt class would be even considered by RuN. Even when Shtorm was considered its low end competitor was to be ~30ktons AFAIR. Perhaps Krylov proposal was this low end implementation?

The QE can have 33 aircraft topside & 24 below:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mCUlW6pRbzM/TaDAovrP_4I/AAAAAAAAAEc/cdnxMKEwHno/s400/cvf-delta-av1.jpg

Most of the time more aircraft r parked topside, since it's not easy & takes time to bring them down & back up again.

Which means they will suffer more from the salted water, sun and probably snow during winter.

They can use protective tarps/foil, just like the USN does in the ME against blowing sand/dust, even inside the hangar. The lift doors r open most of the time anyway, so as much moisture enters the hangar bay as on the topside.
Snow/ice buildup will also be prevented by tarps &/ maintenance crews.
The hangar bay will still be big enough to do maintenance, its main function.

The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y