Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

15-18 years is no time to develop a fighter       in which country?

F-35 result of JSF result of JAST started in 1993... 25 years to date and still in need of debugging...

20 years?! 2030sis first time Russia can have anything after Kuz. i just wonder why Russia needs extremely expensive (2x price) Su-57 in 18 pieces per CV?

K ready in 2021-22, roughly same period tests of izd. 30 should end. And then it is simply impossible that you know:
- how many Su-57K would eventually fit in what prospective Russian carrier
- how cheap or expensive it would be compared to the future STVOL plane.
One thing is wildly speculating as we do, but at least try to find some arguments. This exercise of you is too much even for me

BTWcheck this out       here you got on  Kuz

I know this fan art. Should it be proof of something?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Laser and Microwve will never matrialise?

I said exactly the opposite actually...

hoom wrote:Apparently F-35 squadrons will be 10 planes each.

VMF squadrons are 12 aircraft per deployment.

If the USN has 11 CVNs, 2 will be in maintenance/refit/refueling at any given time, so they need squadrons only for 9 CVNs. Even then, not all of them r at sea at the same time, so the # of squadrons could be less. The USMC planes may also fill in for any fighter shortage.

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already lol1 lol1 lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote:

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already  lol1  lol1  lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

for LFMS they are

For Eehnie too.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Laser and Microwve will never matrialise?

I said exactly the opposite actually...

ohh rlyyy?  Imust have misunderstood you      

Not only you misunderstood me but completely missed the places where I explicitly expressed my opinion on DEW    
Here, just the sentence above to those you misleadingly quote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:    1) I love to hear the laser/EW weapons are to you SCi-Fi, perhaps it is good to read sometimes military news? I can see the same denial as before with VSTOL lol1 lol1 lol1
   Survability is first of all using weapons to shoot down missiles, dazzle their sensors or cook electronics. if there  be any special armor dunno.

By now it is not even close to being operational. It will come probably, but we are still far from that. Countermeasures will be developed and doctrine will need to be adapted. It is still unclear if these weapons will make a change in the kind of platforms used for air combat, maybe in the future fighters are substituted for transport planes with huge DEW and stocks of drones and/or missiles, who knows. So if traditional fighters are still applicable, these systems could be implemented on a Su-57. If not, the F/A-XX would be obsolete too, if ever developed at all.

BTW guided ?      

Previously, the MiG-35 will use laser weapons, said the president of the United Aircraft Corporation Yuri Slyusar . According to him, on the plane from six to eight the number of suspension points has been increased, which will make it possible to use, among other things, prospective weapons, including laser weapons.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201703071309-x2lj.htm

Yes, a journo understanding things with his arse is a proof of the MiG-35 going to be equipped with blasters at any moment now
Do you want to bet on that happening?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote:

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already  lol1  lol1  lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

for LFMS they are

WTF? Are you kidding me? When did I say that? On the contrary, I have said that those models are proposals done without any link to MoD and therefore are proof of exactly NOTHING.

Isos wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:for LFMS they are

For Eehnie too.

Like alwyas you are far of the reality.

My favourite option is to see the main variant of the Su-57 able of using the future Russian aircraft carrier.

Naval variant of the Su-57 would be a second option for me. Valid but a little less interesting.

You and others can bury the real news with tons of non-sense, but this will not change the reality, it only makes the topic a non-sense.

And while you do it, the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Deck fighters/ground attack planes can be land based like the A-4/-6/-7/-8s & F-4/-14/-18s, but the land based F-16/-15/-22s can't be CVN based, as their navalization isn't worth the trouble.
The same can be said about the SU-57, as others pointed out. It has ~the same J-20 (which isn't being navalized) & F-111 dimensions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Specifications_(F-111F)

If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the Su-57 could be suitable for a 70K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN & to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.
Naval versions EF2000 & JAS-39s were also offered, but they r still only on paper & in plastic:  

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe, however this is now thought to be substantially more given the Typhoons's "unfriendly" design in terms of adapting the airframe to suit sustained naval operations. If the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is completely uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter

https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/gripen-m-for-indian-navy/
http://mdbp.org/sa-news/saab-offers-sea-gripen-carrier-borne-naval-fighter-jet/

W/o the CAT, they still will need stronger & heavier landing gear & fuselage.

..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Deck fighters/ground attack planes can be land based like the A-4/-6/-7/-8s & F-4/-14/-18s, but the land based F-16/-15/-22s can't be CVN based, as their navalization isn't worth the trouble.
The same can be said about the SU-57, as others pointed out. It has ~the same J-20 (which isn't being navalized) & F-111 dimensions

If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the Su-57 could be suitable for a 70K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN & to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.

First let me say for the umpteenth time that I don't know whether Su-57 can or will be modified for carrier operations. This is simply speculation about theoretical possibilities for RuN, not some kind of assertion that it WILL be done. But for the sake of being factually correct, have to disagree on what you state above. I agree that an aircraft that has not been designed for carrier operation will be more difficult or even practically impossible to adapt. Loads to airframe and landing gear, wing folding, angle of landing approach, min. speed come to mind as significant design requirements that differ from CTOL related ones. But when you make your case for the Su-57, you make some IMO incorrect assumptions:

> The Su-27, with similar overall design to the Su-57 and originally designed as CTOL but afterwards adapted successfully for STOBAR operations voids your first argument
> Su-57 is notably smaller than the F-111, which besides was planned to be a carrier aircraft
> If Su-33 is carried on the Kuznetsov (64k max displacement), how would it be a problem to carry a smaller plane (Su-57) on a bigger ship of 70k?
> How many could be carried on a 100k CVN? F-14s had roughly the same size than Su-57 (both heavy fighters, F-14 being slightly heavier even when 4G was generally lighter) so the later would be (if equipped with a folding wing) roughly equally suitable in terms of footprint and on-board numbers.
> Size may be one of the elements that limit navalization, but is far from being the only one as you suggest. J-20 not being navalized proves nothing in regards of Su-57. Looking at the J-20 it seems to me its landing gear is not apt (too short and too weak). Not sure about the low speed performance too. J-31 (already with double front tire and robust main gear) makes more sense as naval fighter IMHO.

Well, there is a reason they r not restarting production of SU-33s; if they were so good, why not do that instead of betting on MiG-29Ks?

Su-57 is notably smaller than the F-111, which besides was planned to be a carrier aircraft

It's ~3 tons lighter but their dimensions r very close, pl. see relevant links.
The F-111 was for CV/Ns but it didn't work as well as the F-14.
On a 70K ton CVN, there'll be even less space.

I didnt post it lol1 lol1 lol1 240 vs 750 is ekhm not enough even if they will increase by 100% is still will be a half f needed deck fighters.

At the top of this page you clearly posted it as a quote of what he said and then in your calculations you ignored what he said...

Ture that's why Kuz will slowly die with obsolete MiG-29k and Su-33 unless new light fighter will be build. And new fighter will be build

Why?

If Russia sends a carrier to support Russian intervention in South Africa... exactly why will the Su-33 and MiG-29KR be obsolete?

Do you think F-35s will try to shoot down Russian jets?

Assuming Russia has been asked to assist in South Africa... as a country that can offer military assistance, but without all the strings and bullshit attached like with requests to the US or UK, where they get all the contracts to rebuild etc...

If Venezuela asks for a carrier group to visit because they feel threatened by the US, it will be the presence of the ships and aircraft that are of value... don't think of the aircraft on a carrier as being a one on one comparison with other fighters... what they are there fore is to extend the sight and reach of the ships... they are not there to dogfight their way through NATO...

F-35 result of JSF result of JAST started in 1993... 25 years to date and still in need of debugging...

Confusing the word debugging with restarting... the future seems to be F-35 avionics and systems in the F-22 air frame... so VSTOL is probably out the window...

I know this fan art. Should it be proof of something?

It shows how powerful the F-35 is... it is already carrying missiles better than Russian missiles.... it is carrying an Indian missile... Su-57 was too expensive for India, so why don't they try an F-35 instead...

If the USN has 11 CVNs, 2 will be in maintenance/refit/refueling at any given time, so they need squadrons only for 9 CVNs. Even then, not all of them r at sea at the same time, so the # of squadrons could be less. The USMC planes may also fill in for any fighter shortage.

Actually the cost of deployment means most of their 11 carrier groups are not deployed most of the time...

According to this:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

One is "forward deployed" and three more are deployed and the rest are not in use... five in maintainence, and one in post deployment and one in pre deployment workup...

Well, there is a reason they r not restarting production of SU-33s; if they were so good, why not do that instead of betting on MiG-29Ks?

Simply money.

It costs money to setup production of any aircraft, and the cost of setting up production for the Su-33 to make two or three dozen would make each aircraft quite expensive for what it was.

The MiG-29KR was already in production for India, so the set up costs were zero, so adding their order for MiGs worked out much quicker and cheaper and easier, plus the MiG-29KR is a fully multirole aircraft, unlike the Su-33, which is just an Su-27 with naval alterations... ie a fighter interceptor with no ground attack capability except dumb bombs and unguided rockets.

The Su-33KUB was a dramatic improvement with extensive multirole capabilities, but was not ordered either.

It's ~3 tons lighter but their dimensions r very close, pl. see relevant links.
The F-111 was for CV/Ns but it didn't work as well as the F-14.
On a 70K ton CVN, there'll be even less space.

What are you talking about?

Full load weight of Su-57 is less than 30 tons, so it is lighter than an Su-33 but with much more powerful engines and no external weapon drag...

The F-111 is more like 45 tons with rather less engine power...

The Su-57 is actually lighter than an F-14 carrier based fighter and has a similar weight to an F-18.

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:for LFMS they are

For Eehnie too.

Like alwyas you are far of the reality.

My favourite option is to see the main variant of the Su-57 able of using the future Russian aircraft carrier.

Naval variant of the Su-57 would be a second option for me. Valid but a little less interesting.

You and others can bury the real news with tons of non-sense, but this will not change the reality, it only makes the topic a non-sense.

And while you do it, the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

I remember seeing plastic models from the 1970s that were supposed to represent the carriers to come after the Kiev class... yes, that makes the plastic models Kuznetsov models... and what sort of planes did those plastic models have on them?

It wasn't MiG-29s or Su-27s... it was MiG-23s... because the model is about the carrier and not the plane...

If it is not a larger carrier with decent aircraft then why even bother with carriers... go with the best or expect to lose... and if you expect to lose why bother spending any money at all on some piece of crap that wont do the job?

Su-57 navalised plus 70K plus ton carrier or some Star Trek UAV/UCAV launcher vessel/container ship.

Edit: I should point out those plastic models of carriers from the 1970s were not seen until the 1990s...

It costs money to setup production of any aircraft, and the cost of setting up production for the Su-33 to make two or three dozen would make each aircraft quite expensive for what it was.
The MiG-29KR was already in production for India, so the set up costs were zero, so adding their order for MiGs worked out much quicker and cheaper and easier, plus the MiG-29KR is a fully multirole aircraft, unlike the Su-33, which is just an Su-27 with naval alterations... ie a fighter interceptor with no ground attack capability except dumb bombs and unguided rockets.

Don't they still produce the SU-30s for India, not to mention the SU-34/-35s for themselves & China? And why couldn't the bigger & longer range SU-33s be upgraded to multi-role to match the SU-30?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Laser and Microwve will never matrialise?

I said exactly the opposite actually...

LMFS wrote:I mean, apart from vague references to fancy energy weapons, lasers, smart skins and high-tech engines... what? When? How many? How expensive? Where are the demonstrators to all those features? Where are even the requirements

+++

Earlier, the chief of the Air and Space Forces of Russia, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, announced the possibility of using laser weapons on the MiG-35 aircraft

LMFS wrote: Laser GUIDED weapons...

+++

Coming in 2021: A laser weapon for fighter jets

LMFS wrote:Yes yes yes...

ohh rlyyy?  Imust have misunderstood you      

BTW guided ?      

Previously, the MiG-35 will use laser weapons, said the president of the United Aircraft Corporation Yuri Slyusar . According to him, on the plane from six to eight the number of suspension points has been increased, which will make it possible to use, among other things, prospective weapons, including laser weapons.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201703071309-x2lj.htm

It is difficult to assume that russian jets will soon acquire laser weapons. Laser (powered) weapons need huge amount of energy. It`s impossible to put such an energy source within the airframe of either MiG or SU. Laser weapons will be still only land based

GunshipDemocracy wrote:For lasers this is only matter of size of energy generator/storage. You need 100kW impulse to destroy any missile and perhaps also fighter. Andyes with money already invested they will be. If in mid 2020s or early 2030s doesn't matter.  With microvawe weapons perhaps will be not installed for manned fighters as there are problems with pilot safety AFAIK.

Thanks for apologizing for quoting me wrongly
Glad to know that DEW are a trivial issue, that is fantastic news

This no journo. I have listened interviews. "all perspective kinds of weapons including laser one" . I bet that this is happening now. Within 5-10 years will be available for most of fighters. . Not necessarily for MiG-35 though  as program is at best hibernated if not dead.  

BTW This was that 1 guy who was saying this the other one was Yuri Slusar gen manager of OAK:

I know who Tarasenko is, the guy saying MiG-41 will de ready for series in 2025... no comments
BTW how do you know they were not referring to laser guided bombs? There were comments in this regard, sadly don't have the source at hand.

Oh sorry tne I misunderstood I thought you were saying about having navalized Su-57 as deck fighters  OK  the my cute CGI  should be then contemplated as artist impressions about new gen lighth fighters

Thanks again for apologizing, for putting words in my mouth I have not said