Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

MiG-29M fist flight 1986 Right ! this is completly new airframe only 32 years old

If you are going to be a dick about it there is no point in a proper discussion... the MiG-29M from the 1980s has nothing at all to do with the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

then why all countries are developing new fighters? what's wrong with them?

The only further upgrade today for the MiG-35 design would be stealth, and lets see what that is actually worth when new radar designs enter service in the next couple of years...

lets continue your logic shall we? 3 Su 57 (nt even navalized) and you got CNV de Gaulle class

Except one Su-57 is worth more than any piece of shit Frog carrier... Su-57 should be compatible with Zircon.

Do you suggest that any current fighter is as simple as Fokker VII ? or technology doesnt change ?

Modern aircraft are complex, but are not so fragile as a VSTOL fighter with high pressure gas tubes through their entire structure that are critical to its capacity to hover.

Yak 141 had 152kN engine neither 180 nor 250kN one
And stop BS about inability to VTOL will you?

There is not such thing as a Yak-141, the programme name was Yak-41, and its 152kN thrust engine destroyed the runway at Farnborough... if that is the case do you think a 180 or 250kN would do better? Of course it would damage it even more if directed downwards... which means no main engine deflection downwards during takeoff or landing... ie conventional aircraft takeoffs and landings on conventional runways not covered in heat treated tiles.

Zhuk didnt function?! Suspect Suspect Suspect Radar was based on zhuk and actually was developed.

How did they develop it? The Yak-41 barely flew... there was no money.

No data about this. Do you have any? Programme was cancelled well in 90s short before Russia default in 98. It had nothing to do wth quality of fighter

It was cancelled just after a heavy landing on a carrier ruptured a main fuel tanks and the second prototype burned... the heavy landing was an attempted vertical landing where hot exhaust gas was ingested into the main air intake and the main engine stalled...

frame? (hook? frame strengthen? anit corrosion paint? CV landing electronics? ) so MiG-35 is carrying 500-700 more kgs in land version

MiG have said the MiG-35 will be fully carrier capable.

Is that how Ka-31 works? I think you'd still want an onboard operator though, Ka-31 seems to have one.

Data processing is done on a nearby ship...

Ka-31 is Airborne Early Warning... a radar in the sky. What they actually need is an Airborne Warning And Control... that collects radar data and processes it and turns it into commands... vastly less data transmission, and vastly more useful and less conspicuous.

The VMF could have similar tiltrotor tankers for its STOVLs, tiltrotors & helos.

How?

They don't have any tiltrotors...

For quite a long time already I am asking myself if this is topic on future aircraft carrier or on its aircraft!!!???

The design of the aircraft to be used will dictate what carrier options are possible.

With STOVL aircraft you can get away with smaller carriers, but in my opinion it is like converting a Mini into a limousine... a limo is supposed to be comfortable and luxurious but it is expensive, but trying to make it small and on the cheap and you end up with something silly and embarrassing.

With bigger aircraft then a bigger carrier makes more sense, but just because you develop STOVL aircraft does not mean you can't have a bigger carrier too.

“Technology of stealth does not make sense. No one will look for you with the help of radar - except for those who are sitting on the ground. And so they will cope with stealth. There is no stealth for large ground radars,”..

Experience in real war over the last few decades show that large ground radars are the first systems taken down in an attack/invasion.

The fact that a big ground based radar can detect your stealth aircraft does not mean your interceptors you send up can find them... communications will likely be jammed and the source of your commands from your main radars to your pilots will also be noted.

The first things your cruise missiles destroy will be those comms centres, HQs, airfields of course, and major Radar installations and of course known SAM sites.

Once they have been degraded then control of the air becomes much easier.

For an enemy to detect you they must use their radar which creates data for you to add to your targets database.

Obviously with an enemy with no C4IR and no IADS then you take it down piece by piece... instead of white playing black it is white playing individual black pieces all operating on their own in the dark because their comms are jammed.

With Russian carriers having stealthy Su-57s is useful because in addition to being stealthy they will also be very very capable fighters.

Having a real AWACS platform instead of an AEW like a Ka-31 means the AWACS platform in the air will probably be detected, though with modern AESA radar it could still operate in a low emission mode that makes it hard to find.

The point is that it will be relatively easy to spot, but it will also see you coming from a long way away and so it can send commands to aircraft in the air and ships on the surface... this will again betray its position, but the aircraft and ships don't generally need to reply so you don't know where they are or how many there are... your rush to attack and shoot down that AWACS you detected 1,500km off your coast might lead you to fly over a cruiser with more firepower than 20 S-400 batteries plus 2 S-500 batteries, and of course the equivalent of 30 S-350 batteries and a dozen Pantsir and TOR batteries... OOPS.

And being a C4IR system they wont need to turn on anything.... just use data from the AWACS to get their ARH S-400s within a few kms of your planes and their ARH seekers will do the rest...

1) to fully test Su-57 phase II
2) to wait until fighter is fully tested, with full spectrum of weapons and there is a really need (so far Su-35 is enough for all threats)
3) thus save resources now by postponing full production for other projects

They already have Su-35 and MiG-35s ready to enter service and from what I have read they are rather cheap in comparison to stealthy aircraft and would likely have lower maintenance and operational costs too... what is the rush to get the Su-57 into service?

With new technologies stealth might turn out to be not the game changer the supporters keep saying it is... I mean why is Israel so afraid of the S-300 system first developed from the late 1960s... the F-35 is supposed to be able to penetrate S-400 systems and win...

Well as for mini and limo good example. Do you know why limo is expensive? because is available to few. Most people drive Hyundai or Honda to have reliable and affordable car.

The problem is that in this example the mini is spruced up to be like the limo, which makes it no longer affordable.

Lets be honest.... when the Harrier first came out it was going to be the best plane ever because it could still take off and land when all the airfields were destroyed... it meant you could have very small... practically helicopter carriers and save a lot of money.

The problem was that it was all a lie.

Harrier cannot take off from any old strip of open ground... it just can't... and those little helicopter carriers can only use helicopter based AEW... which is certainly better than nothing of course... but a real carrier with real AWACS platforms and real fighters would have been vastly more use to them in the Falklands Islands war.

I didnt find much about it, would be appreciate to learn more about it. Then what and when was changed comparing to 80s ?MiG-29M frame?

The MiG-29M which didn't ever enter service from the mid 1980s was based on 1980s technology but even it was different from standard MiG-29s.

The MiG-29M used wielded construction so internal spaces could be sealed and plumbed and used as fuel tanks. The skin of the aircraft became part of the structure.

The Indian order reopened production but production of the new aircraft design with all new materials including composites. The design was revised to be more stealthy and used up to date components and systems. There was still a delay between production for the aircraft for India and the aircraft for Russia because pretty much all the foreign components in the Indian version were replaced with new Russian equipment.

The new design is a two seat configuration and when used as a single seater extra fuel is located in the place where the second seat would be... something they didn't do with the MiG-29 and MiG-29UB which were different.

Would you answer my already couple of times asked question: why all countries prefer to build new fighters if upgrading old is so fine idea?

Name one aircraft in service right now that is not an upgrade?

Even F-35s entering service are not block 1 models they have been improved or modified... and it is the same for all other aircraft in Air Force service everywhere... they are up to block 70 updates for the F-16s flying around the place... in fact it looks like the full entry into mass produced service for the Su-57 might be waiting for the new engines and some other technologies to mature and become available...

VSTOL is more complex but not "fragile" that's your phobia not reality. 6g fighter is same level of complexity complexity and "fragility" . Yet both Russia & US are developing them.

We don't even know what constitutes a 6th gen fighter, but we can be sure it will have backup systems and redundancies so that in the case of a failure that it can limp home. A VSTOL with a failed engine or even a blocked nozzle is screwed.... even shrapnel damage could render the aircraft unable to hover... which means it needs a backup alternative... hook and cable system... so it might as well get rid of the V and just use STOBAR instead and become a much simpler and cheaper aircraft with better performance.

To argue STOVL can be cheap and effective is like trying to argue the Ka-52K could replace STOBAR fighter planes in a much smaller and cheaper airframe...

Some solid rocket boosters could extend the range of standard AAMs and its AESA radar array could be enormous... look at the size of the aircrafts nose...

3 times I've already asked - 0 links with source provided by you. So we stop this ad nauseam mantra here.

Asked what?

stop repeating ad nauseam same mantra, will ya? nobody is going to do continuous VTOL on unprepared locations. VTOL is required by navy mostly. Space on ships is scarce.

Who said anything about continuous.... it can't even take off once vertically without heat resistant matts protecting the ground...

BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not using of TV?

Large wing area for its weight and the ski jump directing the aircraft into the air at launch at which point the engine nozzles would be deflected at a downwards angle to contribute both forward thrust and lift to unload the wing and increase their capacity to generate lift.

1987 was approved plan for low rate initial production in Saratov plant 292.

There were only two flying prototypes and after one crashed the program was cut.

The reason for the crash was obvious exhaust thrust hot air ingestion in the main air intake... solution would need a complete redesign to stop the hot gas from the lifting engines moving forward near the main engine intakes.... a much better solution would be some sort of engine driven lift fan but it would still seriously compromise the design because you have this enormous bulky lift fan that is not that heavy but of no use in normal forward flight and take up an enormous internal volume of space that can't really be used for anything else like fuel or electronics.

It is this enormous internal volume that makes the F-35 a bit of a dog... if it didn't have that design requirement it could be a stealthy F-16 which is what it was originally intended to be...

MiG-29k appeared only because of Indians not because it was so great fighter.

Even if the Yak-41 design had been available they would have picked the MiG... it simply has better performance, is simpler and cheaper to buy and to operate and has a lot of commonality with a plane they also operate in their air force. Normally not an issue but sometimes you can share spares pools in critical situations. The Yak-41 would still be a technology demonstrator with flaws and bugs that wont come cheap to fix.

PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.

Yeah... you actually have to contribute funds to something to be called a cosponsor, but poor stealth compared to what... does India have an alternative choice of their own? Its current engines are more powerful than the engines on the Su-35 and it is smaller and lighter than that aircraft... and the Russian AF says the Su-35 is good enough to make the Su-57 not so urgent that it has to be rushed into production and service. Of course it is more expensive... it is not called next generation for nothing.

If India thinks it is crap why isn't it ordering F-35s?

Why has it actually said it would wait for the aircraft to get into service and then look at it again.

Would they have said the same things about the Su-30M before they bought it and put it in production?

and same guy said that MiG-41 will be produced as from 2025th, didnt he?

Have heard MiG guys and AF guys say the MIG-31 will need replacing by 2028, so if they don't have something ready to replace it by 2025 their might be issues.

Navalized fighter weights 500-700 more. Then did he tell potential customers that this is already navalized and heavier fighter or he was just bullshiting potential customers? like they have no experts on their own.

Having a stronger aircraft is not a bad thing... naval models of the MiG-29 also had more powerful engines and larger wing areas than the land based models too...

yeah in 70s-80s data transmission was suspicious indeed. Not in 2030s tho. You see AEW&C can be realized in many ways, IMHO chopper is worse than drone. Both ceiling and duration fo flight makes drone a better option.

Yeah actually I don't know... the Kamov is a very heavy helo, but a real fundamental change from the ground up to make it an AEW platform could probably make a real difference in terms of weight and size... I mean even putting the new more powerful engines Klimov have developed should add to performance in terms of operating height and a serious upgrade in terms of electronics could also transform its performance... but even assuming it remains in the 10-12 ton class... what sort of UAV do you have in mind in that weight class than can carry a 6 metre wide antenna array and also spin it in flight.

I mean it is all nice a fixed wing UAV able to fly faster and higher than a AEW helo, but if it can't deploy a radar antenna as big and can't maintain height with such an antenna deployed then you gotta say how is this thing going to operate... it will need serious engine power to get airborne from the Kuznetsov... whereas the Ka-31 could operate from a frigate and jump from frigate to frigate or destroyer even without a carrier present... it could even operate from a supply ship that is supporting the surface group... most of them have helicopter pads...

They actually do. UAV Fregat already has working proof of concept. VDV requested own tiltrotor (perhaps will be competing with high speed helo).
Long before any CV is gonna be launched tilltrotor can be reality.

Ahhh dude... if a small model that takes off conventionally constitutes proof they have a tiltrotor, then can I refer you to various plastic models and fan art to prove they have 70K ton carriers too?

This would explain the big divergence between the size of a conventional flight deck and the one of the new light carrier proposal. Very good and deserving of credit to innovate in CV configuration after some many decades of rather unchanged designs

Very clever and very promising... thinking outside the square... but odd designs will be a hard sell to the Russian Navy... they are quite conservative.

Lets face it one of the reasons they went for the Mistral was that the design was proven and could in theory (and in fact) be built rather quickly and put into service rather fast too... well except for the fact that the French are .

Su-57 can take off in very little space because, even fully loaded, will have a T/W ratio really close to one (that means, it could almost take off vertically like a rocket) and will be further helped by a ski jump. This considering izd. 30 engines will be in line with claimed thrust of course. It will accelerate horizontally and the rotation will be done with help of the ramp. Don't really think TVC + LEVCONS can create lift through deflection which is more useful than the pure acceleration of the engines in the horizontal plane.

Everything takes off easier with forward motion.... VSTOL, Helos, and normal aircraft...

You forgot to say that you need really high speed to get lift what is impossible to have in short take off without TV.

Rubbish... all you need is an increased angle of attack... provided by a skijump for an Su-57, but it also has TVC so it can control its wings angle of attack anyway.

An AN-2 can't fly at really high speed, but would be able to take off from the Kuz...

True but 44ktons, not nuclear pp what in Russias case sucks with scarcity of bases and nuclear powered liders? Full size air wing? 24-28 fighters from which 12 light migs?

Scale it up to slightly bigger than Kuznestov and give it nuclear propulsion and EMALS and a ski jump ramp and they might have something there... very clever... offers some advantages of a catamaran design without the excessive width issues...

Shallow draft might be an issue in terms of internal space but then an all nuclear electric drive where nuclear power generation can be placed as ballast to generate electricity with electric pods at the front and back like on their new icebreakers so it wont even need tug support in dock...

I see only Su-33 and MiG-29K, not even navalized PAK-FA

Not their job to speculate on what aircraft might be used... using current aircraft suggests it could go into service now without the extra cost of developing new aircraft for it...

I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!

It has a ski jump...

Not really. You are using cheap propaganda arguments which make no sense at all. Garry was trying to point out fundamental conceptual flaws (ingestion of hot air) that motivated to change to a lifting fan in the F-35. He is openly critic of STOVL but that does not mean he is using empty arguments

I remember the 1980s when Harriers were the thing... especially after their performance in the Falklands War.... but as information trickled out it turns out that it was more pilots skill and new missiles that made a difference... not to mention all the promises about operating from open clearings in fields or supermarket carparks was all rubbish.

Before it was revealed that they were using new missiles there was even a suggestion they used vectored thrust to outmanouver the Argentine pilots... in fact they had a name for it... VIFFing... vectoring in forward flight... of course a load of rubbish...