Adding VSTOL ability is not major problem here and for NAvy a great advantage- you can have manu more capable fighter on smaller ships.
The Chinese have never operated a VSTOL fighter before... on land or at sea... lets wait a bit before deciding perhaps?
STOL drones can refuel as well ...
Of course they can... but if you want a refuelling aircraft you tie up your fighters because if you are not going for a big AWACS platform then you are hardly going to develop a carrier borne aircraft for just transport and refuelling roles... which means only buddy buddy refuelling... which makes sense on land... a fighter that has launched all his AAMs at the enemy on his way home can top up another fighter with AAMs but low on fuel... at sea that means extra take off and landing cycles to refuel an aircraft that really should have been bigger anyway.
ok what precisely kind of defense functions? against 2-3 US CVSGs? not enough ? in Syria the whole contingent was much smaller. And it worked for 3 years.
Means you could keep 20-30 in the air at one time even allowing for losing a dozen or so over a long campaign... a NATO attack of 200 cruise missiles detected by AWACS and engaged by AAMs from those aircraft... and then engaging those 3-4 US CVSGs with a battery of 200 odd Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles... yeah... why not?
in 2030 MiG-29 will be 50yo frame based plane. Unlikely will be base of Russian deck aviation.
Rather younger than the F-18 that will still likely be in USN service. The Su-57 will be the primary fighter... the MiG-29KR will be the two seat trainer replacing the Su-25, but with air to air and air to ground capacity that the naval Su-25 never had (it does not even have its gun).
No, because USA stopped when Russians were really pissed. There were neve any danger of RuAF or RuArmy from coalition. And till nuclear war wont be.
In case of nuclear was 20 or 40 fighters wont matter anyway...
The opposition wont always be so impotent as the anti assad forces and ISIS...
And at the end of the day the US would probably be rational enough to know when to stop... but would everyone?
c'mon CVGS is not accompanied by tankers huh?
The difference is a CVN will only need one for aircraft fuel... a CVGS will need a lot more.
A long distance from Russia that is a long thin chain that would be easy to interfere with.
with current EM/laser based defenses not danger anymore
Your confidence is impressive... is it well founded?
Ka-29 was to be a carrier one, Ka-31 was AWACS
For fighter support of an LHD you are better off with AWACS helos as well as helos that can launch AAMs than a transport helo for transporting troops... which it will be carrying anyway.
nothing but they were not shown on Shtorm mockup
Proves nothing. The K mockup had MiG-23s on it... which never happened either.
and F-18 had worse performance than F-14 ! damn lets revive F-14. F-35? stealth, sensor fusion , avionics, weapons.
There is nothing in the F-18 that could not be put into the F-14 as an upgrade... and the same could be said regarding most of what the F-35 has except the stealth... the fact that the F-14 is a much bigger aircraft however means much greater capacity and performance... redesign it so it was cheaper and easier to maintain and you have a much better aircraft than the F-35 in the VSTOL version anyway.
But when you rely on massive fighter application why to develop Kindzhal or Zircon? Copy US power projection only in stupid way?
Not copying US power projection... half the planes are not strike bombers... most of the time half the planes will be carried, but large growth potential in case it is needed is a good thing... extra capacity would allow enormous numbers of drones to be carried and used...
Yeah well 2 sites weer included in treaty. But Russia didnt build any AMD otherwise.
Not two.
the treaty specified each country (Soviet Union and US) could have one ABM defence system around either an ICBM field or their capital city... Soviets chose Moscow and the US chose ICBM field and then shut it down... so they spent the money and didn't even use it.
The Russians inherited the Soviet system around Moscow and have continued testing and upgrading since the end of the cold war to today.
Putin openly stated: there were no resources for this.
S-500 is pretty much mobile ABM system with similar performance to Moscow fixed system... there will be land based and also naval based versions and it will be global... anywhere the Russian Navy can go...
precisely what kind of enemy? UK? USA? China? for other you ned 20-24 fighters for them 48 is too little.
If you only have 24 fighters that effects what sort of conflicts you can get involved with and for how long... more means a wider range of usefulness and more combat persistance.
Also keep in mind that like the land based Su-57, the naval version will be multirole... able to hit air and ground targets but also capable of recon and jamming and other roles too.
There is no way on Earth it could keep sailing for longer than 40 years without a major rebuild, and a major rebuild means not only stripping down 100% of any equipment inside the hull, it means checking the whole hull meter by meter and wherever needed replacing hull's parts as well.
In the next 10-15 years they need a full on overhaul of the the K... especially an upgrade to the propulsion system... conversion to nuclear would be ideal, but other changes would be good too.
Last, airships do not have any large payload capability.
the main problem of range would be solved with nuclear power generation.
Otherwise the main other problems were fire risk, and structural weight and strength... the reality is that modern materials like carbon fibre and nomex and light strong fabrics that are fire retardant would be excellent to make them lighter and much much stronger.
Purge the space between the bags of gas with nitrogen and the fire risk becomes so low you can use cheap abundant and much more efficient hydrogen, instead of inert but expensive helium.
In fact a hydrogen fuel cell, plus nuclear power plant would be the ideal combination... the fuel cell with the steady electric power supply can be used to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen into water and back... that means water ballast can be converted into extra lift without dumping... heat from the NPP can be used to make the hydrogen even lighter and lift more weight... the antennas themselves will likely generate heat so operating them will add lift too.
The airship itself would be huge.. but that would work in its favour... an AAM hit like an AMRAAM means serious damage to the area it hits but the layers of bags it has to penetrate and the fact that some ballast can be dropped to compensate for the loss of lift means even a direct hit will cause the airship to descend rather than fall in a ball of fire.
Make it light enough and you could probably operate it at very high altitudes where AMRAAM is not even a threat.
Equally with plenty of radar power it could blind any radar guided missile with an intense radar pulse... and it could carry missiles itself... short range IIR guided Morfei (its thrust vector motor would allow it to manouver in the thin upper atmosphere air better than most other missiles)...
It is not going to zip around like a rocket but then the ships it operates wont do more than 40 knots anyway... and most will do rather less.
Airships' time is gone forever .
Ended too soon... don't you watch Fringe?
With modern materials the fire risk is reduced to near zero... add to that the technology in solar and fuel cells and small nuclear power supplies and electric motor propulsion... it is the way of the future where low speed is concerned.
I have read about designs intended to carry thousands of ton items from where they are made to where they are to be installed.
Imagine a factory building a 500 ton turbine to be fitted into an hydroelectric dam.... they can either make 50 ten ton bits and send each by truck to the nearest port and sail them to the closest port to the dam and then send the 50 ten ton bits by truck or rail to where the dam is... that means you need a road to the dam.
Not only could an airship pick the load up from where it is made in one piece already assembled but it could take it directly to where it is needed and used to lower it into place...
You could use such an airship to deliver all the vehicles and materials to make a runway in the middle of nowhere...
You could use it for an antarctic base... take the base down for summer and take it back to Russia for winter...
Needless to say, a future V-22 Russian nearest counterpart & its quad rotor follow ons won't need CAT, and will have many civ. applications!
They are not actually as fast as fixed wing aircraft though.... those big rotors would be annoying on deck... they would cover a lot of area... in terms of danger during takeoff and landing...
I personally don't think much of the V-22... it looks unbalanced.
The V-44 looks a bit more stable but with four sets of blades where are you going to put the radar dish...