1. These 300 m can hardly mean full load from a flat surface.
Big wing area, low drag, smaller than an Su-33 but rather more powerful engines... with even more powerful engines within 5 years...
Plus the ski jump boost for takeoff performance... not to mention the ability to turn the nose of the ship into the wind and often be able to sail into the wind to further increase lift.
Plus 90% if the time the most critical mission for an Su-57 on a carrier would be with a relatively light load (air to air loads are rarely more than 30% max load potential) plus full fuel...
2. That take-off run would mean to put fighters to take off in a conventional carrier where they need to land. You don't do that
A conventional takeoff on a runway is not the same as having wheel blocks hold you back while you run the engines up to full power before being released for takeoff...
3. Takeing off is fine, but landing is even better. How you do that on a flat top without arrestor hooks?
Fitting arrester hooks to MiG-33s and Su-33s was not that difficult.
4. Operation from a carrier requires an extreme level of resistance to salty environment, for all involved hardware.
Corrosion resistance is an issue for all modern aircraft...
High composite material content helps in this regard.
5. Stress to the airframe and landing gear for carrier operations is extreme too.
The prototypes of the PAK FA were upgraded with improved strengthening already...
Navalized Su-57 can be very similar to conventional one me thinks, but I doubt conventional ones could operate from a carrier. AF and navy have separate structures after all.
The current information about the MiG-35 suggests it can be used on carriers with minimal modification and that future service models will be able to operate from carriers if needed.
This might sound a little strange but they have already done tests where cables across roads attached to gearing in trucks are used for mobile landing strips on motorways with arrested landings.
It would be an ideal way to disperse aircraft without the problems of VSTOL aircraft that destroy conventional paved roads on landing and take offs.
Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!
I am sure common sense will prevail.
I think they know half arsed small carriers are not value for money... I rather suspect they will develop EMALs, and VSTOL aircraft, and normal fixed wing aircraft and use them on 70-90K ton carriers.
They wont go for dinky 20K ton helicopter carrier cum air superiority carrier... they will likely use VSTOL aircraft as an aircraft with extra and different capability options... much the same way they operate MiG-29K2 and Su-33 aircraft on the K.
I am referring in general to the conventional single hull. Hull is thin and with a form factor that does not allow for big internal space, unless you go to extreme dimensions.
Making it long and relatively narrow is so it can move through the water faster than a barge...
Multihull designs would reduce drag and increase speed and internal volume... but will also dramatically increase weight... and weight often corresponds to cost in terms of building and operating...
Agree, therefore, better to consider what technology will allow in terms of unmanned flight and AEW then.
Manned aircraft are easier and cheaper to develop and test... starting with a manned aircraft and then perhaps developing an unmanned version would be a much safer way of going...
Yes, but you need to consider numbers. USN has such a huge amount of carriers and so big air wings that you should spread the risk on platforms capable of self defence instead of concentrating it on little survivable assets like AWACS. You would struggle to protect them.
Even if you had zero fighters... an AWACS platform operating above several capital ships and perhaps half a dozen destroyers is the equivalent of flying an A-100 above 100 S-400 batteries and perhaps 10 S-500 batteries with Pantsir and TOR and BUK for support... I think it would be the safest thing in the sky... even if the US had an ICBM with a terminal warhead that was an ARM... the S-500 would likely shoot it down...
Now if you add a few Su-57s there then it becomes even better protected... as do the ships the aircraft are operating with.
Well, we move progressively in that direction. Not that AWACS are going to disappear any time soon, but as the rest of platforms are more and more capable they may be "less irreplaceable" than before.
If your AWACS is going to become a tiny fighter sized platform in the form of a UAV then I would agree... but anything you can fit into a fighter you can put something much much better in a large AWACS platform.
The Soviets already looked at mini awacs ideas in the PVO... the whole point behind the Su-30M was a large aircraft with a large radar supported by lots of smaller cheaper aircraft with less capable radars... the Su-30 flys around looking for threats with its big powerful radar and when it detects a threat it sends a smaller cheaper fighter towards the target at high speed and high altitude, but with its radar off... the enemy sees the Su-30 but wont see the MiG... the MiG- uses target data from the Flanker and launches a missile much closer to the target and then turns back while the Su-30 basically manages the missile to the target for a kill... the MiG burns a lot of fuel and uses missiles, but it can land and rearm and refuel while the flanker directs other MiGs to targets and just cruises at medium altitude looking and directing other platforms for attack.
The point is that an AWACS platform could do the same over much greater ranges with 360 degree coverage for much longer... with bigger better radar... it doesn't matter how much better new radars in fighters are becoming... the same radar 4 times bigger in an AWACS plane will always be better... especially with smaller stealthy targets becoming an issue.... (Swarms etc).
They have uncle Sam to help in case of need, that could be a reason. Nevertheless catapults seem prohibitive for most navies fro some reason.
I suspect uncle sam wont help with EMALS because the VSTOL model F-35 is the one they make the most profit on.... and the more the British buy the cheaper it will become for the US Marines...
Plus you can't give a friend something you don't have yourself yet...
The new STOVL fighter may be as different from the Yak-141 as the TU-22 is from the TU-22M: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka
I can already hear GarryB saying that "they won't be related"!
I hope they are not related... the Yak-41 was fundamentally flawed... those two lift jet engines behind the cockpit blast hot air down... when landing on a deck that hot air will stall the main engine if it goes in the main air intake... meaning that enormous engine at the back will suddenly lose most of its power... boom.
They couldn't solve the problem then... the only solution is a lift fan powered by the main engine... which takes up enormous internal space but is useless deadweight during normal flight.
Personally I think the only real option is to make the front lifting system able to be angled back and operate in normal flight so it is not dead weight... something with thrust vectoring at the front and rear of the aircraft would create an eye wateringly manouverable aircraft...
Still le$$ than 80-100K Ton CVN that neither India nor any1 else will buy, w/o which it's unaffordable now & into foreseeable future. At least STOVLs may be exported & used by the VKS too.
What makes you think STOVL aircraft will sell? They are really only useful from small carriers and most customers able to afford small carriers around the world are looking at F-35 and would never consider a Russian aircraft no matter how much better it would be.
Russia likely wont sell any CVNs, but it wont sell any SSBNs either...
New light carrier proposal from Krylov:
Is that the right picture... it looks enormous....
Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.
Go nuke or go home I say... though for export I could understand no nukes.
and no cats... no point developing EMALS for gas turbine ships...
Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
I would have gone for something closer to 60KT.
A conventionally powered ship would need a lot of bunkerage... I would go for 60K ton too...
I am not aware of that and it makes no sense. Increasing weight to improve take-off?
Structural strengthening to allow heavier landings... steeper glide paths... remember it also has thrust vectoring...
CVs are designed to operate far from home. Apart that you keep ignoring that you need to arrest the plane during landing and you need a hook for that.
The only fixed wing aircraft that Russia and the Soviet Union ever operated on carriers were land based aircraft developed without arrester hooks, yet in each case... MiG-33, Su-33, and Su-28, had hooks fitted... and they worked.
Kuz attained 29 knots only on trials. As machinery status deteriorated, best speed has fallen down to 18 knots. During last Syria deployment, after partial boiler refit, she attained 23 knots! Machinery needs complete overhaul!
That is what they are currently doing.
"Electromechanical" catapult? They had problems with arresting gear cables, losing 2 fighters, did they fix them to make stronger cables for CAT?
No... they are not going to fix the arrester gear... aircraft that take off from the K in future will just land somewhere else...
And they didn't have problems with the cables... there is no arrester gear cable on this planet that could be used on its own to stop an aircraft like they do... they need fully functioning gear to allow give to stop the aircraft over a greater distance and longer time to reduce the peak stress on the cable.
The simple fact is that if the cable didn't break but the arrester gear didn't work the plane still would have crashed... the difference would have been the tail hook would have been ripped off with potential for damage to the aircraft structure... either way the aircraft would end up in the sea.
Correct operations is that the hook catches the cable but the cable comes out and lengthens... not instantly or it would not stop the aircraft, but it is gradually let out slowing down the aircraft and not putting all the stress on the cable (which would break it).
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
10 years is normal time since they didnt start form beginning. 
