Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

outnumber? Russian fighters will be always outnumbered the whole RuAF is to have 700 fighters as US Navy aviation has 1000 fighters. BTW there is no way 200 Russian fighters will be deck based. Currently there is 23 MiGs and 18 Su-33 (?) of which 14 was on deck in Syria.

And considering that most of the time these aircraft will be outnumbered, don't you think it makes sense to make them the best planes they can make, or is it more important to just make them small and cheap... of course having said that even the land based Su-57 seems to be one of the cheapest modern fighters you could buy...

Two CVNs with 100 aircraft each plus Kuznetsov, plus land based training and testing aircraft as well.

Not all 200 would be on the carriers and not all carriers would be at sea at one time, but 60 fighters on each of the two nuclear powered carriers and another 30 odd on the K, plus another 50 or so at the two land based carrier simulation facilities in case extra fighters are needed...

They could easily be a mix of Su-57 and MiG-35 based designs...

Whether Su-57 will be deck based is not decided yet, as not decided how large/how many CVNs will be in service. IMHO currently MiG-35 would be best option but in second half 2030s not anymore.

Well with further upgrades either aircraft should be able to do a passable job, but the Su-57 will have more growth potential, but then a non stealthy version should be able to carry more weapons and stores and be cheaper to operate.

precisely! But , then you dont need cable interceptor but small fighter is good enough to defend ships what twas to be proven

But a bigger aircraft can fly further and for longer and carry bigger sensors that can also see further and include equipment smaller aircraft don't carry like L band wing mounted AESA radar...

76 ordered Su-57 vs 700 fighters im the whole RuAF makes it like 10%. So 90 is good enough right? 20,000 tanks (with storag eones?) and how many T-14 is ordered? because T-72B3M is good enough

76 Su-57 ordered so far, there is no way to tell what the final production number will be especially when potential naval orders can be added.

The CFE required Russia to get rid of most of their tanks down to a level of 6,000 in its european region. The CFE agreement is not in effect because the other members refuse to sign it but Russia met the numbers requirement for that agreement, what they didn't meet were demands to withdraw their (peacekeeping) soldiers from Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh...

They are going to have four vehicle families each of which will have a member that equates to a tank, but then they will also be making enormous numbers of Armata vehicles... think of all the different types of vehicles in a division... the numbers of other vehicles dwarf the number of actual tanks in any div whether it is a motor rifle div or a tank div... so how many armata tanks do you think they will actually need?

Approaching US CSG to 300km is a suicide mission for fighter pilot

With AESA radar and other sensors a US CSG could be detected from rather greater distances than that... the target information passed back to the ships to launch long range anti ship missiles in enormous numbers while the fighters observe the results and deal with any missiles or aircraft coming the other way, both via detection and actual missile self defence.

Just as importantly a Kh-31 with a scramjet motor offering twice or three times the flight speed, using a similar amount of fuel... well a 600kg Kh-31 moving at about 650m/s to a range of 240km... so that means engine burning for about 6 minutes... so moving at say 2.2km/s for about 5 minutes perhaps, you are looking at 650km range fairly easily... and you could easily triple the weight of the weapon to further improve range performance...

IMO, it will be a waste of $ to build a 70K ton CVN.

What would be a waste would be them thinking the biggest heaviest carrier wins and therefore wait to see how big Chinese carriers are and make theirs bigger for bragging rights on the internet.

They have determined what they want... why would they build something they don't need?

large UDKs can combine LHA missions with CV missions- it's not like their ships r w/o adequate defensive armaments & need to rely only on air cover when outside their land based aviation.

The Russian Navy is like the Russian Army in that it does not expect the support or protection of the Russian Air Force. That is not to say they would not benefit from cooperation, but they have their own air defence systems and weapons.

With that being said the purpose of helicopter carriers is landing troops and disaster relief... not air defence of surface vessels. That is what they want CVNs for.

they developed many other things before that failed & got cancelled, so it's faulty reasoning.

Like VSTOL fighters. They realised the performance was never going to be better than cheaper lighter simpler less fragile more conventional aircraft, and now they are developing in a different way from mini carriers with little VSTOL fighters.

But in their defence the Hermes class mini carriers no longer exist in the British fleet either because of their limited performance... their new carriers are a similar weight to the Kuznetsov...

other ocean surveillance sats can locate ships. The SOSUS will also detect their noises, adding in pinpointing their course, speed, & location.

They might also detect thousands of decoys and drones... and SOSUS is vulnerable to direct attack... in the case of a serious war.

Their E-3 AWACS, B-52s, & MQ-4C UAVs can also find them in the Arctic & certainly in the Chukchi Sea, not to mention the Bearing Strait/Sea.
The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers).

Yeah, radar range less than effective range of late model S-400 naval SAMs being developed for the Redut system... and also shorter range than the S-500 system to be used on large naval vessels too.

they could care less what other Asians feel; the don't trust each other & most hate each other's guts.

Most don't trust each other (why should they be any different from Europeans and Americans), but they can unite against the Japanese rather quickly.

It is just a model, but those aew&c aircrafts remind me a lot the yak-44

Bare in mind that I remember seeing Soviet carrier models from the 1970s that had MiG-23s on them because they really didn't want to reveal that they had MiG-29s and Su-27s in development at that time.

This model looks like a Yak-44 but that could change too... they might develop new radar arrays that don't need to be carried like that but still give a 360 degree field of regard that could be built in to the aircraft structure and electronically scanned instead of manually rotated to detect targets...

This one?

No obvious funnels on there for GT engines...

Nuke propulsion does not only mean compact and powerful energy source, but it means unlimited endurance for the basics of sailing around, and it leaves more space on board for aviation fuel and ammo which is the main endurance and persistence limiter for a carrier.

Seems pretty clear they want helicopter carriers first, and regarding new aircraft carriers they already have an aircraft carrier but a new CVN will add much better AWACS support.

I wonder if they might consider a biplane based on the An-2 but with a much more powerful engine and scaled up a bit with folding wing structures... AWACS aircraft don't need to be fast and large wing areas means low speed takeoff and landing speeds... it would just be a question of how high it can operate at...