Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Man this thread has gone off the rails.
Even the old Russian gas station nonsense is here, surprised kvs hasn't shown up yet.

As far as i can see, STOVL will be expensive, cumbersome and next to useless against any real fighters.
It's use would be restricted to air-to-ground operations only.
Of which any of the cheaper alternatives could do.

As for carriers, Russia will need one that's capable of launching some AEWs, Migs/Su-57K, as well as lots of Kalibre missiles.
And no amount of LHDs is gonna change this.
This carrier also needs to be Nuclear, i don't think i need to explain why.

I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
Then again, i could just be kidding myself.

But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

Thats Su-33UB which was prototype side-by-side trainer for K.

Su-34 uses a rework of the cockpit with the classic flattened duckbill nose rather than the round one on the Su-33UB.


Just on that topic & since there has been much debate on F-35: Su-27/UB, 30, 33, 34, 35 series probably have more parts commonality & cover a wider range of uses than the F-35.

Edit2: though I've presumed the 4* AEW referenced to be Ka-31s

See what I mean... when the focus is being a cheap bastard you loose critical capabilities that are necessary to make it even worth bothering.

Lack of real AWACS will make these carriers and the ships that operate with them horribly vulnerable.

The whole point of a carrier is to be able to bring along an AWACS platform... everything else is just gravy.

Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!

If the Russian economy was on the oil needle it would be collapsing like Venezuela is right now even without the sanctions imposed on it currently.

The fact that it isn't even in decline economically, shows it is not oil dependent, but it does benefit from its oil trade so US antics against Iran will actually benefit Russian and Venezuela in the short to medium term...

Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.

Perhaps you should compare the economic condition of Venezuela with Russia and make a few guesses as to why one is on the verge of collapse with its neighbour calling for invasion, and the other looks pretty damn stable... with its neighbour calling for invasion (Ukraine).

Russia should stick to exporting energents. It could export 100 different products in Germany and have them all rejected after sanctions start, but they decided to be their no. 1 provider of natural gas, structural backbone of entire economy and thus create a mutual dependency. Energy is very important. Now Germany is not being so hard on Russia when it comes to Ukraine and other focal points.

Lets be clear... in all the decades that the Soviet Union and Russia have been supplying energy to Europe the only times there have been problems was when the Ukrainians were stealing gas from Europe... they have otherwise never interfered with the flow of gas to what were and currently are her enemies.

Russia has no history of using commerce as a weapon... that is a western thing. But the lesson they are getting now might have implications down the track...

Rest assured: the US & their L. American allies will preempt Russia in Venezuela, like they did after WWII with military juntas, interventions & coups/regime changes in the Caribbean, C. & South America "to keep them out of Communist hands". Their economy is dependent on the US economy; the region is under the US thumb.

If Russia can't have a sphere of influence in the Ukraine and the Baltics and Balkans, then why should she respect US interference anywhere?

People aren't actually stupid... your control of media keeps them ignorant, but they are not actually stupid... even if they don't care... but the point is that as long as things are good they wont care, but when the three jobs they are working still doesn't pay the bills then you might start to have trouble shovelling that shit...

no you cannot ignore Europe. I didnt see it Germany, Austria, Italy, Nederlands, Hungary or Finland are trading with Russia. Poland too thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup . True that energy products are topping now but it is in all directions.

I am not suggesting ignoring Europe.... I am saying Europe is not a friend or an equal trading partner and can cut you off at a moments notice for something they accuse you have done... they will give no evidence and demand you admit your crime and promise never to do it again... that a future?

Because there were no money to invest in competitive products yet. If you spend on blue water navy you wont have them either for next couple of years. Everybody protects its market and Russia does it too. But where product's competitive (titanium carriages for Airbus, nuclear power plants Finland or Hungary). Will Russia have competitive products they will be on EU markets too. If they block Russia cuts but billions import from EU and grow due to market (still machine building / aerospace or 30 blns € alone on pharma...)

In Europe Russia would be competing with European and Asian and American products, and lets face it... what German is going to go out of their way to find a TV made in Russia?

In Asia and Africa and central and south america... Russia products can also compete, but with no local competition things are much easier, and price advantages mean more... and if you can follow it up with good PR like support after an earthquake or flood and you can build good relations... something too late with the west because their media has already designated Russia as the bad guys... Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union too but are absolved of all guilt because the Soviet Union is Russia isn't it?

Ergo: economy first with client base with lowest access cost. Dont stretch outside your means and power. Romans once did.

A powerful but relatively small navy is useful no matter what, and access to the worlds market that doesn't go through Europe or China is a benefit to Russia.

It is nordstream and south stream for trade... and western actions make it necessary rather than a luxury.

Look at how much trade they previously sent through Baltic ports to support former allies, when Russian ports could have and can do the job... why reward Europe with trade when they can do the same with countries that don't hate Russia?

Russian export to China will grow and including Hi-tech with India there are many projects due to made in India. Ka-226
You cannot send good via rail? Damn you should tell this to Chinese, Japanese or Koreans who want to use Russian railways for new Silk Road. BTW China wants to build rail to Africa BTW with branches to India/Myanmar/Vietnam/Malaysia/Thailand

Of course you can send by rail... there has been a planned rail through north korea to link to south korea so south korean goods can go via north korea through Russia to europe... but it still hasn't happened because the US said no.

Now what happens at the other end with rail lines going through the Ukraine and Poland to Europe... is it possible they might say no too?

Or impose enormous tariffs and make it non viable?

The purpose of sea trade is to bypass the political shit..

Perhaps in 50 years is true. But Russian export needs to develop export NOW. I can see a brilliant strategist thinking here changing more populated and much richer clients for "prospective" in 50 years. So you were the one talking about retardation?

Richer clients that will do everything they can to block trade with you... Africa has been dealing with these richer clients for several hundred years and yet they have not developed and are considered poor... what future has Africa HAD with these wonderful rich clients you keep trying to convince Russia to keep trading with?

These marvellous rich clients that are doing everything they can to overthrow governments and steal resources from any country including in the Middle East, but also including the Ukraine... I remember the shock and outrage at a war in Europe over the former Yugoslavian states... come the 21st century the US spends 5 billion and creates a civil war in the Ukraine and not only do the EU not give a shit... they blame Russia for it... and impose sanctions...

But you think Russia should keep selling them stuff and buying their stuff?

Syria, Tartus. Resupply station in Camp-Rham Vietnam. Russia could have worked on bases in Iran/Eritrea or Cuba but why? there is NO MONEY now. It is better to spent couple of billions on investing in competitive civilian products then CV. Especially large one

Not the job of the Russian Navy to invest in Russian designed TVs... it needs small compact forces that can operate on there own anywhere in the world with minimal support. When I say small I don't mean all Corvettes...

did you read your what you wrote?! with understanding Suspect Suspect Suspect
1) I agreed that small universal carriers like France or medium as UK built is OK (IMHO is definitely the road)
2) You say : no this is not the way Russia should go and sam time you're that US is not an example.

Yes, of course... I am demanding Russia make ten CVNs 100K tons each... right now dammit...

And WTF does a universal carrier mean?

It carries aircraft... it does not go into space... why does it need to be universal if you are suggesting they only need three?

Now focus. I know it might be hard for you but you need to try harder this time. Kuz size bad, Nimitz size bad, de Gaulle? crap.
Then what precisely you need?

Perhaps you need to focus... it does not matter at all what you or I WANT... the Russian NAVY have said they want something a little bigger than the Kuz.

Not a lot bigger like an American money maker that is making some US companies disgustingly rich, and not smaller like the Kiev class of obsolete rubbish.

Read Goldilocks and the three bears... they have said something slightly bigger than the Kuz is just right.

China is an ally in SCO and cooperation gets closer every year. I dont think Chinese would say no if Russia calls them for help. Especially that Chinese goodies go vie Northern Route...So if Chinese CSG is near what is the problem?

And what if, in return, they ask Russia to help defend all those artifical island in the South China sea... will Russia be able to say no?

MiG-29k doesnt have MiG-35 avionics. It has old avionics, perhaps there will be some updates but none has been announced yet.

The aircraft they are using is called MiG-29KR... but it has the avionics from the 1980s?

The MiG-29KR is the same shape and size as the MiG-35, so if they NEED to upgrade the the KR they can do it easily...

MiG have already said that the MiG-35 is carrier compatible.

no they wont. 50 years air frames are not going to be used anymore. Same as MiG-23 is not used today.

How the hell could the current MiG-29KRs have 50 year old airframes... they were made brand new in 2010...

Price of Su-33 was 1,7 price of Su-27 I take per analogy Su-57. LEts use low price so ~75mln$ unit. 24x1.7x75= 3 billions $.
If you take an estimate for 100mln per unit you have 4 billions per Kuz only.

But you are claiming that a STOVL 5th gen fighter can be developed from scratch and produced in numbers of less than 150 for less money... right!

IMHO Your misconception is that VSTOL is only for fleet. Not this is deck light fighter with VSTOL that can be used on land as well. Same as F-18 was. Vide Canada, Finland or Australia.
The whole Rafale ordered by French Navy + AF is 180 pieces for 30 years...

The F-18 and Rafale do not direct 20+ ton thrust jet engines directly downwards at the runway when they land... a STOVL aircraft DOES.

It could only operate on land as a long take off and long landing aircraft because it will have no way at all to land any other way without destroying runways.

As for destroying airstrips by STOL I am afraid that personal phobias dont count in real world

So what engine will be used? ...I noticed you conveniently dropped the V... so we are talking about Mig-35s and Su-57s again now are we...

Yak-141 was way better then AV8 and in fighter role not really worse then contemporaries.

Bullshit. It had a smaller radar than a MiG-29, plus shorter flight range... only four weapon pylons under the wings with no capacity for any ordinance or fuel tanks under the fuselage because of engine exhaust flows there... it was also rather slower, and less manouverable due to a rather small wing.

New VSTOL will have top notch tech and perhaps add much to fighter drone development.

And all that super tech you put in it to give it an edge over a normal fighter could also be fitted to the normal fighter much more cheaply to get a better aircraft.

BTW light fighters have 700-900 heavy 1200 but anyway it is too short to stop carriers of 1,600km US stealth CMs.

You don't get it do you...

The fighters are there to defend the ships from missile attack... it doesn't matter if the missiles have travelled 50km from a nearby island or 50,000km and been round the world 5 times... their purpose is to stop the missiles. Hunting down platforms that threaten Russian surface groups is a different job and will likely be done with long range very high speed missiles...

If it has nothing to do thats's why MiG-35 is on-hold?

Who said it was on hold?

Why would they order any at all let alone 6 if it was on hold?

Maybe all its technologies need to transition from the concept and design phase to the ready for mass production phase...

VSTOL is not MiG-35 replacement.

VSTOL is Yak getting success in the ear of the Boss... when it costs too much... is fragile and not battle ready... and has a high loss rate because of its flawed fundamental design and it gets canned they will just keep using MiG-35s and Su-57s for the job.

Even if it is a success, it will likely just operate along side Su-57s and MiG-35s... if the Yak-41 had been successful they would have probably had bought two dozen and they might have perhaps 6-7 left by now. They would only have bought more MiG-29KRs because the Indians paid for setting up production for it... O doubt they would have bought Yak-41s like the didn't buy Su-33s.

Yes they will be upgraded (Rafale F3R, USA F-18 Block III). Drone mode is the future of fighter, faster decisions, ability to use microwave weapons and more much tighter turns. This is just matter of AI and computing node processing power. With current level and billions spend yearly on AI by 2030 i am sure this will be possible.

So what are you talking about? The MiG-29KR and Su-33 are too old to upgrade but the ancient F-18 will be upgraded making it a wonderful super high tech future plane/drone/deathstar?

[qutoe]Nope this was stated by Supreme Commander + deputy PM for MIC and MOD by signing new programe. But Sluysar wants to sell MiG-35 of course. India perhaps? Egypt? Iran?
For Iran: this readily available, quantum leap in tech for them. Perhaps can build it locally... Oh man this would piss USrael.[/quote]

But Mr Expert... you just said it was obsolete money pit crap... the Jooz and the yanks will be overjoyed... probably just like they are overjoyed now because S-300 is rubbish and they can walk right through it... that was the whole point of spending trillions for the F-35 wasn't it?

F-18 had started retiring last year (legacy hornet) and is supposed to be retiring till 2030 (optimistically but this is the plan) . Rafale stays longer but only because new fighter will be in end of 2030s, beginning of 2040s.

Cool, so the MiG-35 can stay cause those stupid Yanks and Frogs wont have any fighters it seems for the 2030s....

Labor was cheaper in China, Japan? but in Sudan, Egypt or Cambodia had even cheaper than China and? Look at population China 1,3bln Japan 130mln (byt they had industrial traditions and had no army expenses)

When the west was abusing labour laws in Japan, china was not an option... you know.... they were commies. It wasn't until the americans started the enemy of my enemy is my friend shit that they could use cheap chinese labour without ethics or morals... and look at what they created... hahaha.

As for India Their GDP growth is for next 1o-15 years 8-9% i.e. more than Chinese. Their GDP makes then already 3rd worlds economy... Google says : $10.385 trillion (PPP; 2018 est)

Which just really shows what western economics indicators are really worth...

yes, it is doing now. But this is unrelated with size of air wing whatsoever.

Syria is the limit of its reach because Russia is otherwise largely land bound.

Hmm do you have double personality? Suspect Suspect Suspect just before you argue that only big CVN has meaning. Then you say no meaning but Zircons and Kinzhals. Then you write Su-57 wont cost then you say it will be expensive.

You don't understand because you think Russian carriers will be US carriers...

Big carriers are useful... little carriers are for has been countries that really should not bother with carriers at all.

For fighting against an enemy with carriers Zircons and Kinzhals will decide the fight... a Russian surface group without a carrier would be at a huge disadvantage because of lack of AWACS and situational awareness , but its hypersonic missiles will deal with any enemy ship that comes within range and it would have to be much more alert because it will likely get very little warning if it comes under attack.

Carrier based Su-57s will not be cheap, but you wont need a lot of them and the ships they will save make them worth the extra money.

Cheaper planes will cost you expensive ships that might cost battles.

Except the high loss rate and poor performance will mean the cheap planes will be value for money... pay peanuts and get monkeys or elephants...

3) AEW - this is explicitly stated 4 airplanes. (ДРЛО = AEW and not ДРЛОиУ = AEW&C)

Which makes it worse than useless.

[qutoe]I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
Then again, i could just be kidding myself.[/quote]

The alternative is a smaller carrier, but also more, which wont end up being any cheaper, but will certainly be much less effective.

Hole wrote:On an ami carrier only half of the aircraft fit inside the hangar. In Russia all carriers in the past could accommodate all planes/helicopters in the hangar. That´s why they always carried less planes than western carriers (with comparable size).

You could clean the aircraft from time to time. But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

Russian carriers must often operate in far north seas, in adverse climatic conditions, so their aircraft must be in hangar! US carriers haven`t such problem!

Hole wrote:

hoom wrote:

But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

Thats Su-33UB which was prototype side-by-side trainer for K.

Su-34 uses a rework of the cockpit with the classic flattened duckbill nose rather than the round one on the Su-33UB.


Just on that topic & since there has been much debate on F-35: Su-27/UB, 30, 33, 34, 35 series probably have more parts commonality & cover a wider range of uses than the F-35.

I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.

And because of such form of a nose cone, the plane is dubbed "duckling" -утёнок.

I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.

Oh I see that context now, that is very interesting indeed

I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.

Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
I'm definitely a fan


Thinking about that, with Krylov using a tandem 2 seat model, work already being done on re-engining Su-30SM for Al-41 & a 2-seat navalised Su-57 likely being a very long way away, could we potentially see new-build navalised Su-30s with Al-41?
I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.

hoom wrote:

I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.

Oh I see that context now, that is very interesting indeed  

I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.

Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
I'm definitely a fan


Thinking about that, with Krylov using a tandem 2 seat model, work already being done on re-engining Su-30SM for Al-41 & a 2-seat navalised Su-57 likely being a very long way away, could we potentially see new-build navalised Su-30s with Al-41?
I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.

They have already had decent CVN in construction in the beginning of 1990s - Ulyanovsk, project 11437, in Nikolayev yard! But USSR dissolved and the snow fell over Ulyanovsk and all famous projects. Russia wasn`t interested and there was "smuta" without money. Ukraina wasn`t eager to complete it for Russia. Ulyanovsk was some 30% complete when all work stopped. The hull was then broken up on slipway in 1992-3.

Now, more than quarter of a century later,  Ulyanovsk project can be used partially, but with many modern improvements and substantial changes.

Gunship Democracy, your comments are a collection of false sentences.

You saw multiple times the cost of the F-35 for the US, you saw multiple times the real costs of the US aircraft carriers, and the estimations for the Russian aircraft carriers.

And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

GarryB wrote:

I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
Then again, i could just be kidding myself.

The alternative is a smaller carrier, but also more, which wont end up being any cheaper, but will certainly be much less effective.

Honestly Garry, it's not that a smaller carrier isn't possible, it's just that of the feasible designs presented, make that very unlikely, i wish there were more options, but here we are.
Anyway, the Navies already given their 70kT requirements, so let's hope the designers present something good.

..both Korean leaders already stated otherwise. Japan has no problem with sending via Russia and China nor India have to ask USA.

Yes, they signed on a deal that SK will upgrade the NK railroad network to link SK to the RF via rail.
When the railroad is extended in the RFE & a bridge is built to Sakhalin which is then connected to Hokkaido, Japan will cease to be an island, just like Britain after the Chunnel was built. So, if Russia orders rubber, rice, bananas or coconuts in the Philippines, Indonesia, the rest of SE Asia, or Taiwan, they could be shipped to PRC, Korea, or Japan, loaded on freight cars & delivered to W. Siberia, Central & N. Russia in less than 2 weeks. Transit fees on PRC, Korea & Japan + exploitation of new resources accessed there will pay for all those new roads, tunnels & bridges many times over.
Many urgent goods can also be moved by airfreight & in the future, ekranoplans.
Russia paid dearly for her continued access to seas with wars against Sweden, Turkey, Iran, England, France, & Japan. Improved trade links helped her economy but her only colony was (& in many ways still is) Siberia, the Far N./East, & Alaska (sold to USA in 1867) which was explored & reached by land, rivers & coastal sailing. As China during the Ching Dynasty, Russia still has almost everything it needs w/o having to use long SLOCs in extensive overseas trade.
In the Russian conditions, investing in roads, tunnels, bridges & nuclear icebreakers is what will create wealth, attract more immigrants, & increase the birthrate- that may in turn generate more overseas trade to enable large blue water navy, incl. a few CVNs to be built & maintained, not the other way around!
Despite having the #1 economy:

US aircraft carriers spend more time in the port or are under repair than combat missions. This is written by Business Insider with reference to the US Naval Institute.
In addition, only 15% of aircraft carriers in principle were involved in 2018. As the newspaper notes, this is the worst indicator since 1992. In addition to this, only half of the US Navy fighters are currently operational. http://www.ng.ru/news/628874.html?print=Y

The #2 economy can already afford a few CBGs: https://www.popsci.com/china-new-aircraft-carrier-type-001a
https://www.popsci.com/china-nuclear-submarine-aircraft-carrier-leak

Even if Yeltsin was interested, w/o the Gossplan & the Gossnab & 100s other entities across the FSU it couldn't be finished.
No, it's related here that only 15% of US CVNs were deployed in 2018. If the #1 economy doesn't deploy 85% of its CVNs, then how many the much smaller RF economy can deploy in a given year after building 2-3 CVNs?

just curiosity here: do you have any data, tech info that proves your opinion or just you have a hunch ? hint: do you think Russian military and decision makers didn't to any analysis before making decision?

The F-35 and Zumwalt shows all the research in the world and it can still go wrong.

The marketing however suck. Instead of presenting it only with mig 29K and say it can carry something like 40 fighter+ 2awacs + some helicopter for search and rescue, they make a stupid list of mig, sukhoi, awacs not specified, tens of ka-27.

Actually it is rather clever... it is saying you could put it in service now with existing aircraft and not have to spend billions on new planes...

In politics there are no friends only partners. If Russia has alternative can close gas pipe to EU. Now they cannot.
BTW you've just said this last time

No that is not true... Russia has to keep in mind the interests of friends as well as partners... only the US shits where it eats...

Russia has plenty of alternatives to piping gas to EU... the could simply close them all down and say LNG only... they are still cheaper than the US, but Europe would pay rather more for their energy... which will make their products more expensive and Russian competitors more competitive...

if they will be competitive? They will but why on low end saturated markets? For TV sets is twilight of an era. But AR or holographic displays, 3D printers, genetic vaccines, AI commerce/medical systems, new materials, quantum computers , autonomous robots not?

TV was just example.

countries dotn hate Russia, elites have interests the rest is propaganda. Still to me no relation to bunch of large carrier

To secure your own global trade routes you need to have some level of power that can reach anywhere on those trade routes... independent of land bases.

The UK didn't become rich and then develop a powerful navy... it happens the other way around.

for the moment, but both Korean leaders already stated otherwise. Japan has no problem with sending via Russia and China nor India have to ask USA.

The US should not have a say... but it does because it has military bases in South Korea.... and soon there will likely be US bases in Poland and possibly Ukraine so the risk is there.

The other end is Germany or UK. Nobody in Poland, nor Belarussia nor Ukraine will stop silk road. All want to be on board. Their masters wont let them stop this. Too much money for west can be lost.

By the same logic they wouldn't be blocking north stream gas, but they would if they could... even when they could make money from it... look at Bulgaria...

Africans are poor because of India and China?

Africans have only been trading with India and China for a very short period of time compared with the centuries that Europe has been "trading".

Either you dont get that Asia is not USA or UK or you missed the point on purpose

Africa and central and south america have remained poor despite trade with the rich and powerful west. Asia has become wealthy DESPITE trade with the rich and powerful west.

Russias future is trade with Asia and Africa and central and south america.... but only token trade with the west.

Russian TAKRS had following set of tasks:

a) anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
b) ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
c) search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
d) detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
e) assurance of amphibious landing.

So basically air control and providing large numbers of helicopters to hunt for subs.

and navy didnt say where to take money from for those? if they got why not. Before this all stream of BS from navy there was discussion about either storm (100kts) or 30kts carrier nuclear posered. Parts standardized with Liders) . ~40ktons CVN can take enough fighters for doing tasks and is 2x cheaper then 70kts and 4 x cheaper than Shtorm.

A big carrier takes longer to build so its costs can be spread over a longer period... and of course if a 40K ton CVN actually could take enough fighters then why would they want carriers at 70K tons? Doesn't that indicate the fact that they actually want more aircraft than you are suggesting they want... but then what would they know?

stupid argument, you can do better thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup . If Russian ships are around they wont help an ally? That sthe reason for SCO

You said interests not friends... are you suggesting Russia would support another country breaking international law?

you didnt read my words did you? frame desoign 80s avionics early 2000s

Perhaps you don't know much about aircraft design... the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 have a new redesigned airframe made of all new materials and shaped to reduce RCS and all that crap, so the airframe design is not from the 1980s... or are you saying the Armata tank is a WWII design because it has a hull and an engine in the rear and a turret on top like all those WWII tanks did...

They can and they will but only if VSTOL is delayed and obsolete MiG-29k and obsolete and worn out Su-33 need to be replaced.

Except that the MiG-35 will be in service and will also be kept up to date with upgrades during its service life so when the VSTOL is "delayed", the technology they transfer into the naval MiG-29KRs will be near enough to being state of the art at the time.

designed in 1980s. Iranian F-5 also are brand new right?

Of course... technically it is brand new if produced in the last couple of years and of a design that has updated the original design to modern standards like the MiG-29KR has...

BTW 10billions Su-57 is ordered in 12 pieces? 833mnl$ per unit.

OK, you want to be a about it... STOVL... they might have spent 100 roubles on it already but zero are ordered and zero are built so 100 divided by 0 is absurd number... 833 million per airframe is cheap in comparison.

why not? radar, electronics, engines, materials all is available. Production lines are working. Weapons are developed.

Don't you get it?

Think about making a normal plane.... then add high pressure pipes to deliver high pressure air to the nose and to the tail and to the wing tips and to put swivels on each end so that high pressure air can be directed in most directions so these puffer jets can keep the plane level... then put at least one very powerful engine in the aircraft that needs to be able to direct all its force down near the aircrafts centre of gravity... look at the Yak-36... especially from the side and think about what sort of flight performance it has because its purpose is not to take off and land vertically... its purpose is to be a competitive fighter aircraft... and looking at the Yak-36 that big rod out the nose is not for inflight refuelling... it is a high pressure air tube to try to keep the aircraft controllable in a hover...

Now think about this... all this high pressure tubing... any of it fails or gets damaged in combat and you can't land vertically... and with your tiny little carriers that means you can't land at all...

VTOL aircraft are shit... whatever the design is if you take out all that piping and those control nozzles and any lifting systems and just use conventional takeoff you end up with a much better aircraft.

The sort of engine power in a Harrier or Yak-38 and you should have a supersonic plane with rather good performance...

Because of you Freudian fixation about V I left it so you can foucs on short start.

Current Russian fighters are short takeoff...

AL-41F3/FU (izd 30) 180kn or NK-32 (not sure about perimeters of new version though) . sizeboth comparable but NK is heavier.

So basically engine power comparable to the engine of the Yak-41 that could not take off or land at Farnborough because it destroyed the runway surface...

same radar performance (yefim gordon) - 80km 3m2 before Zhuk MiG-29 had radar perhaps even worse, hud+helmet display, R77, R-27

Estimates... it never actually got a functioning radar.

BTW Su-33 in AA configuration has not much different.

Su-33 can have 12 AAMs of various types, while the Yak-41 with four fuel tanks wouldn't match the range of the MiG-33.

Speed 1800km/s,ceiling 15,500m. Yes there were fuel tanks possible.

1,800km/s is unlikely, and with four pylons carrying fuel tanks makes it a gun fighter...

That what numbers say.

The numbers can say anything they like... the actual prototype never actually achieved any of those numbers before it was cancelled.

OK fnally got it! Russian aerospace engineers, MiC, govt and Putin all are stupid and make decisions without analysis. lol1 lol1 lol1 but there are some vigilantes among us!

Drama Queen.

then VSTOL is more then enough

No.

For interception then speed and range are both useful assets... VSTOL has neither.

If VSTOL was that important then a Ka-52K could take off vertically and climb to 5km altitude and launch R-77s and R-37Ms at targets and then descend and land vertically and be rearmed a dozen times before needing refuelling...

oh yes MiG-35 with frame design 1980s in 2030s. Are you fan of oldies?

The MiG-35 has a well proven design shape that is aerodynamic and efficient.

Su-57 can do anything also replace Ka-31. Why not? costs doesnt matter, pace for landing neither.

If there are problems getting a lot of aircraft landed an aircraft can take off with full fuel and a buddy refuelling package and top up the planes waiting to land...

Or the Inflight refuelling model based on the AWACS aircraft could do it.

MiG-29k lines are closed too.

Duhhh... not it isn't... the MiG-35 shares the same airframe as the MiG-29KR so if you need some more it can produce as many as you want...

point here is: real war example (not imaginary one) proves that you all you need can be transported by small CVN

If this minor conflict is what you want to base your expeditionary force on then why bother at all.... the Syrian conflict didn't change at all whether the Kuz was off the coast or not... in a conflict out of range of mother Russia things would be rather different and a rather larger air group would be needed... and indeed a few extra AWACS aircraft would probably be useful too.

no midways so what battles?! real ones not imaginary. in Syria what battles?

You are a funny guy... I can't predict the future so Russia shouldn't need any military forces at all right?

numbers say 4 times cheaper. Do you have any other proving your opinion?

Numbers are talking to you and say 4 times cheaper... My opinion is that you need help.

I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.

Su-34 is in the F-111 weight class and way too heavy even for cat assisted take off.

Kuz arrester gear should already be fixed.

There is no reason why it would have to fly slow... Sentry AWACS cruises at pretty high speeds...

Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
I'm definitely a fan

Problem is that it would only look sideways... the purpose of AWACS is 360 degree down to the sea coverage...

I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.

So you want a brand new navalised Su-30 to replace the brand new MiG-29KRs?

Now, more than quarter of a century later, Ulyanovsk project can be used partially, but with many modern improvements and substantial changes.

But why?

Technology has changed.

They use a naval plane based on a 1980s land fighter because it is still getting upgraded and improved, but with carriers there is not need to base it on any previous designs.

Honestly Garry, it's not that a smaller carrier isn't possible, it's just that of the feasible designs presented, make that very unlikely, i wish there were more options, but here we are.
Anyway, the Navies already given their 70kT requirements, so let's hope the designers present something good.

Do you think the released photos of model carriers are for the Russian navy to decide to buy, to entertain foreign fans of military equipment, or to get foreign interest in their products?

I would suggest the latter, but of course I would also suggest that students and designers at these companies will be making designs all the time and that the ones that are not selected can be released because they would not be classified... I rather doubt we would see new designs they were seriously considering... we saw some alternative designs to Armata before we saw Armata, but we didn't see any losing designs before or after we saw PAK FA.

(We did see MFI and MFS prototypes like the MiG 1.42 etc and Sukhoi S-37, but we didn't see designs for the PAK FA until we saw it).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:Gunship Democracy, your comments are a collection of false sentences.

You saw multiple times the cost of the F-35 for the US, you saw multiple times the real costs of the US aircraft carriers, and the estimations for the Russian aircraft carriers.

And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

Quoting official MoD or even better  deputy PM for MiC statemtns what is official BTW is false then OK. So it be in your world. But in domain of reality is the other way around

And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

You quote like now. Not quoting after all, because your false sentences do not resist to be next to the reality. This is the domain of reality.

There is no reason why it would have to fly slow... Sentry AWACS cruises at pretty high speeds...

Take-off & landing on a little, moving airstrip.
Not concerned about the handling in operation as long as its not too bad but you don't want it to get sluggish/finnicky landing/taking off.

I did say I had weight doubts about basing it off Su-34 but I'd been forgetting about Su-33UB (which also has to be somewhat heavier than Su-33, though as a CV trainer I guess it didn't need to carry arms), point was an airframe with 2 seats and load capacity for a useful AEW radar.

Problem is that it would only look sideways... the purpose of AWACS is 360 degree down to the sea coverage...

Tell that to all the countries who are buying AEW planes like Wedgetail & with the Swedish Erieye radar.

Certainly they have blindspots forward & aft but apparently its considered an acceptable limitation to get a relatively compact & aerodynamic mounting of a big radar.

So you want a brand new navalised Su-30 to replace the brand new MiG-29KRs?

I want an airframe for mounting a podded AEW for a STOBAR carrier.

Needs to be two-seat & have significant carrying capacity for a big enough radar & fuel load to be useful, I think that rules out a MiG-29 base.
A two-seat navalised Su-57 would be ideal but if such a thing ever comes it'll be a long way away so we can pretty much rule that out.

Krylov used what looks like Su-30s on the light carrier model & that seems like a good basis for making new-build 2-seat navalised airframes.
Presumably much of the Su-33 work would be directly applicable to that so development costs should be fairly low.
If you're making the effort to navalise Su-30 to make an AEW version you might as well make a bunch of fighter variant too.

Africans have only been trading with India and China for a very short period of time compared with the centuries that Europe has been "trading".

E. Africa been trading with India, SE Asia & China via Arabia long before the Europeans 1st sailed there:

For thousands of years Omanis have plied a sea-trading thoroughfare stretching north to Mesopotamia, east to India, and southwest to Africa.
https://archive.archaeology.org/9705/abstracts/dhow.htmlh

https://www.thoughtco.com/indian-ocean-trade-routes-195514
http://www.marhaba.qa/the-origins-of-the-dhow/

I had weight doubts about basing it off Su-34 .., point was an airframe with 2 seats and load capacity for a useful AEW radar.

If its APU tail sting & 1 pilot seat is removed, the weight & length of the Su-34 will decrease. The internal space behind pilot seats could be used for extra fuel tanks &/ AEW avionics. It already has canards like on the Su-33; it & the Su-30 can get those + folding wings,etc. added to replace the Su-33s.

Cultivating & helping China as an ally is more important to Russia than following Western written international laws that the West itself manipulates, uses as a fig leaf to hide aggression, & violates ever since it's been on the books.
http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2018-09-28/1_1015_yougoslavia.html?print=Y

In the SC Sea, IMO the VMF will be happy to aid China even only by its presence, in a tit-for-tat against NATO aid to Ukraine, Israel, the Syrian rebels, & ongoing ships deployments in the Black & Med. Seas.
Meanwhile, US F-35B fighter jet conducts first-ever airstrike