Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

In regard to the MiG-29, it was the MiG-29UB that did not have a full standard radar... it has a tiny ranging only radar in its nose, but the original radar was removed to save weight (for the second pilot) and also reduce cost as this was basically a training aircraft, though with IRST and IR guided weapons there is nothing hugely wrong with it.

The current MiGs are based on the MiG-29M2 design and the single and two seat model have the same airframe and both have fully operational radars and other equipment.

The only difference is that the single seat model uses the space for the extra seat for fuel so its range is slightly extended over the two seat model... otherwise they are identical.

That includes the MiG-29M2 land version with single and two seat models, the MiG-29KR naval model with single and two seat models and the MiG-35 with single and two seat models.

The MiG-35 is reportedly designed to operate from carriers as is.

An AWACS model would be interesting, but personally I would prefer a dedicated aircraft designed from the outset for the role, though if they can get 360 degree radar on a fighter sized plane then good on them.

The obvious question to ask some members here is why bother if the MiG-35 is already obsolete and will be out of service within ten years... maybe they just don't know what they are talking about?

I also remember after a defeat in Chechnya lots of professionals inside and outside the Russian military made claims that Russian armour was junk and they should be buying Leopards and will never buy a BMP-3 or T-90 again... since then T-90s and BMP-3s have been bought...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I love to read posts of seasoned ship designers with constructive critics of less experiences Russian colleagues.        

Don't be a moron, I was talking about STOBAR /CATOBAR type carriers, almost all of which have streamlined hulls and speeds close to 30 kt, while LHDs have big fat hulls with as much internal space as possible and speeds hardly above 20 kt. The type Russia has announced is compatible with carrying STOVL to support an expeditionary force but to my knowledge is not meaning a sudden alteration of naval strategy which clearly indicates the development of new carriers, detailed in further statements as vessels similar or bigger than the K.

Dont be a moron. Russia has announced absolutely nothing so far. The on announcement from Rkahmanov is no official statement. Perhaps only one of proposals for spring competition.
Only MoD or Boriosv can name official statements. We like them or not. The only official so far was replacement of MiG-29k and Su-33 with better VSTOL fighter.

Will this ship be chosen one ? only MoD can give an answer. None of us.

LMFS wrote:detailed in further statements as vessels similar or bigger than the K.

so who precisely of MoD said it and when ? a quote perhaps? Better wait till spring 2019. No need to make up stories now      

kumbor wrote:
Fact that Kuz. is registered as "aircraft carrying cruiser" dates from the times when shipbuilding department was hardly opposed to "aircraft carriers" as the "Nests of american aggression".

really no differences in design?

Kuz 58,600tonnes - 24 fighters
6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM)
12 × P-700 Granit SSM
24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)


Carrier QE2 - up to 50 fighters (65,000tonnes)
At least 3 × Phalanx CIWS[11]
30-mm DS30M Mk2 guns
Miniguns

QE - 0 fighters combat operational until 2026, and with new mad idea of SSBN building, surface fleet will be crippled beyond any chance of repair in anytime. Or UK, or England itself "after secession of Scotland" will be unable to support any kind of navy beyond simple coast guard! Small, stinky, joke of a state island if not only as an "Airstrip one" from Orwell`s 1984.

An AWACS model would be interesting, but personally I would prefer a dedicated aircraft designed from the outset for the role,..

The AWACS plane won't be based on the MiG-29, & it wasn't implied.

The obvious question to ask some members here is why bother if the MiG-35 is already obsolete and will be out of service within ten years... maybe they just don't know what they are talking about?

They may not be obsolete now & out of service within ten years; who said they can't be upgraded like the MiG-21/-31s, & A-4s, F-4/-14/-15s were for decades?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

Thanks for the interview, very interesting

Sincere question: where is the part of the new deck fighter? He talks about new fighters until 2020 (MiGs) and then until 2030 to upgrade the ones shore-based (modernize Su-30SM?)

really no differences in design?

Kuz 58,600tonnes - 24 fighters
6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM)
12 × P-700 Granit SSM
24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)


Carrier QE2 - up to 50 fighters (65,000tonnes)
At least 3 × Phalanx CIWS[11]
30-mm DS30M Mk2 guns
Miniguns

Excellent, so you clearly agree the Russians don't make their carriers like western carriers, so they need a much bigger carrier to get enough fighters on board to be useful... I knew you would come around.

Or are you suggesting they build American style carriers with F-35s... in which case you are clearly a 5th columnist and should be ignored...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

Thanks for the interview, very interesting

Sincere question: where is the part of the new deck fighter? He talks about new fighters until 2020 (MiGs) and then until 2030 to upgrade the ones shore-based (modernize Su-30SM?)

На втором этапе (2021–2030 годы) будут продолжены модернизация всего парка самолётов и вертолётов морской авиации и переоснащение самолётов истребительно-штурмовой авиации берегового базирования,будет начато серийное производство перспективного авиационного патрульного комплекса, перспективного многоцелевого вертолётного комплекса берегового и корабельного базирования, боевого вертолёта корабельного базирования. На вооружение морской авиации должны поступить корабельные самолёты радиолокационного дозора, беспилотные летательные аппараты корабельного базирования, перспективный авиационный комплекс корабельной авиации.


At the second stage (2021–2030), the modernization of the entire fleet of naval aviation aircraft and helicopters and the retrofitting of coast-based fighter aircraft will be continued.
There is going to begin a serial production of a promising aviation patrol complex, a promising multipurpose coastal and ship-based helicopter complex, and a ship-based combat helicopter.The naval aviation should be supplied with a shipborne radar patrol aircraft, ship-based unmanned aerial vehicles, and a prospective airborne complex of shipborne aviation.


By analogy to PAK FA

Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, lit. ''prospective aeronautical complex of front-line air forces
Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации,

he was talking about
перспективный авиационный комплекс корабельной авиации- Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Korabelnoy Aviatsii - prospective airborne complex of shipborne aviation (PAK KA ?)

Oh thanks. By elimination of other roles we could think it will be a fighter but it is a bit uncertain yet

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:
QE - 0 fighters combat operational until 2026,

any official data?

Kumbor wrote: and with new mad idea of SSBN building, surface fleet will be crippled beyond any chance of repair in anytime.

after wiki

The Royal Navy is the principal naval warfare service branch of the British Armed Forces. As of November 2018, there are 75 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. 20 of the commissioned vessels are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers, 13 frigates and one aircraft carrier), and 10 are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses two amphibious transport docks, 13 mine countermeasures vessels, 23 patrol vessels, four survey vessels, one icebreaker and two historic warships (Victory and Bristol).

nto that bad to me.

Or Russia where perceptive of 22350 building look rather good? There is no "chance of repair anytime" , thsi is the matter of couple of years and money only.

kumbor wrote: Or UK, or England itself "after secession of Scotland" will be unable to support any kind of navy beyond simple coast guard! Small, stinky, joke of a state island if not only as an "Airstrip one" from Orwell`s 1984.

There will be no secession of UK.  Regardless on whether Scots want or not. Same with Brexit. So what that the majority was for EU?

Please compare with the status of early 70s -
2 fleet carriers
4 other carriers - centaur, hermes, albion, bulwark
approx 80 destroyers/frigates
20+ smaller A/S vessels - light frigates/corvettes
4 SSBNs
10 SSNs
13 SSKs
Viable amphibious and transport force of various ships.

Today, with 19 destroyers/frigates. no matter how cosmically advanced and equipped they are, RN cannot defend even their homeland shores, not to mention strategically important Western approaches and vast area of North Atlantic. UK SSNs are among finest, but there are too few of them! Think logically... one ship cannot be on two places at the same time. Sea is vast. sea is cruel, and many ships need refit in regular intervals.
Not to mention RNs incapability to man even existing naval force. No men to man the ships, low salary, problems with training, lack of funding. Richard Compton Hall and John E Moore even in 80s predicted time when RN will not be capable to support itself. That time has come!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
For the Russian Naval Aviation is very important to work in the development of unmanned platforms. I expect to be unmanned:

- The future Maritime Patrol / Airborne Early Warning and Control platforms (most of them shipborne, adapted to the different ship weight categories, to achieve maximum range for every ship size category).

Very likely both roles can be unified, with more powerful features in the bigger platforms.

Chief-in-Commnad Naval Aviation Kozhin said PAK KA till 2030 - in 10 years i doubt new VSTOL unmanned fighter will be developed.


As for AWACS - still question manned or not, VSTOL ot no tis open,  if all ships then tiltrotor would be a logical solution. Not that much worse performance than classic shipborne AWACS but much mor emodest runaway requirements.

The following references bolded in green, in both the interview to Kozhin and from the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 open the door to what I commented:

http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

- Igor Sergeyevich, if possible, indicate, please, the prospects for the development of naval aviation for a long period of time, for example, until 2050.
- As I have already mentioned, in naval aviation it is planned to modernize the existing fleet of aircraft and their phased replacement with promising aviation complexes.

The daily routine of sea pilots.  Photo Vadim Savitsky.

At the first stage (until 2020), an active modernization of the existing aircraft fleet is carried out.  We are also talking about the replacement of special aircraft with new types of aircraft, the inclusion of assault and transport-assault ship-based helicopters (Ka-52K), naval unmanned aerial vehicles into the combat strength of the naval fighter aircraft units (MiG-29K / KUB).  In total, up to 2020 it is planned to supply more than 100 aircraft to the naval aviation of the Navy.

At the second stage (2021–2030), the modernization of the entire fleet of naval aviation aircraft and helicopters and the re-equipment of coastal-based fighter-assault aviation aircraft will be continued. home base.  Naval aircraft of the radar patrol, ship-based unmanned aerial vehicles, and a promising naval aviation complex should come into service with naval aviation.

At the third stage (2031–2050), naval aviation is expected to switch to a new generation of multifunctional aircraft and adopt a new generation of high-precision air-based weapons systems; and patrol plane far zone.  Search and rescue helicopters of the amphibious class of the far zone will be created, including for operations in the Arctic and offshore Arctic seas.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#211908

Naval Aviation

For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft.

During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

Russia is creating, and will create, multiple prototypes and models of sipborne UAVs, that will be mostly VTOL, unless you think only the aircraft carrier will be able to use them. Every ship will have them. As example the Project 22800 that has not helicopters included, is including Orlan-10 UAVs.

It will be several models of shipborne UAVs that mostly will have reconnaissance, surveillance, maritime patrol and early warning roles, with different equipment depending of the size. Also it will be some combat UAVs with anti-ship and anti-submarine armament.

Ships without helipad will have small UAVs, ships with helipad can use UAVs until the size of an helicopter, and the aircraft carriers can have even bigger UAVs of enough size to allow strong Early Warning equipment. And this will make every ship significantly more autonomous in its level.

At same time, there nothing that allows to assure that the new fighter of the naval aviation will be VTOL or STOVL.

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
For the Russian Naval Aviation is very important to work in the development of unmanned platforms. I expect to be unmanned:

- The future Maritime Patrol / Airborne Early Warning and Control platforms (most of them shipborne, adapted to the different ship weight categories, to achieve maximum range for every ship size category).

Very likely both roles can be unified, with more powerful features in the bigger platforms.

Chief-in-Commnad Naval Aviation Kozhin said PAK KA till 2030 - in 10 years i doubt new VSTOL unmanned fighter will be developed.


As for AWACS - still question manned or not, VSTOL ot no tis open,  if all ships then tiltrotor would be a logical solution. Not that much worse performance than classic shipborne AWACS but much mor emodest runaway requirements.

The following references bolded in green, in both the interview to Kozhin and from the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 open the door to what I commented:

http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

- Igor Sergeyevich, if possible, indicate, please, the prospects for the development of naval aviation for a long period of time, for example, until 2050.
- As I have already mentioned, in naval aviation it is planned to modernize the existing fleet of aircraft and their phased replacement with promising aviation complexes.

The daily routine of sea pilots.  Photo Vadim Savitsky.

At the first stage (until 2020), an active modernization of the existing aircraft fleet is carried out.  We are also talking about the replacement of special aircraft with new types of aircraft, the inclusion of assault and transport-assault ship-based helicopters (Ka-52K), naval unmanned aerial vehicles into the combat strength of the naval fighter aircraft units (MiG-29K / KUB).  In total, up to 2020 it is planned to supply more than 100 aircraft to the naval aviation of the Navy.

At the second stage (2021–2030), the modernization of the entire fleet of naval aviation aircraft and helicopters and the re-equipment of coastal-based fighter-assault aviation aircraft will be continued. home base.  Naval aircraft of the radar patrol, ship-based unmanned aerial vehicles, and a promising naval aviation complex should come into service with naval aviation.

At the third stage (2031–2050), naval aviation is expected to switch to a new generation of multifunctional aircraft and adopt a new generation of high-precision air-based weapons systems; and patrol plane far zone.  Search and rescue helicopters of the amphibious class of the far zone will be created, including for operations in the Arctic and offshore Arctic seas.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#211908

Naval Aviation

For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft.

During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

Russia is creating, and will create, multiple prototypes and models of sipborne UAVs, that will be mostly VTOL, unless you think only the aircraft carrier will be able to use them. Every ship will have them. As example the Project 22800 that has not helicopters included, is including Orlan-10 UAVs.

It will be several models of shipborne UAVs that mostly will have reconnaissance, surveillance, maritime patrol and early warning roles, with different equipment depending of the size. Also it will be some combat UAVs with anti-ship and anti-submarine armament.

Ships without helipad will have small UAVs, ships with helipad can use UAVs until the size of an helicopter, and the aircraft carriers can have even bigger UAVs of enough size to allow strong Early Warning equipment. And this will make every ship significantly more autonomous in its level.

At same time, there nothing that allows to assure that the new fighter of the naval aviation will be VTOL or STOVL.

I see that many people on this Forum are great fans of VTOL/STOVL aircraft, but without serious grounds. With existing technology nobody can build VTOL / STOVL aircraft whose performance will be adequate and similar to those of SU-27/MiG29 family, not to mention SU-57. Combat UAVs could be appropriate solution, as technology is quickly progressing in that way!

kumbor wrote:I see that many people on this Forum are great fans of VTOL/STOVL aircraft, but without serious grounds. With existing technology nobody can build VTOL / STOVL aircraft whose performance will be adequate and similar to those of SU-27/MiG29 family, not to mention SU-57. Combat UAVs could be appropriate solution, as technology is quickly progressing in that way!

Everyone reading my comments regularly knows that my bet for the next generation manned fighter aircraft for the Russian Naval Aviation is the Su-57.

Combat UAVs can be a solution for smalller ships that have only some helicopter of the Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35 family or have not aerial combat means now. To note that in my previous comment VTOL UAVs include unmanned aircrafts of different configurations like tiltrotors, helicopters,...

Technologically the main effort to obtain it would be in the development of unmanned control technologies, but this is coming.

eehnie wrote:

kumbor wrote:I see that many people on this Forum are great fans of VTOL/STOVL aircraft, but without serious grounds. With existing technology nobody can build VTOL / STOVL aircraft whose performance will be adequate and similar to those of SU-27/MiG29 family, not to mention SU-57. Combat UAVs could be appropriate solution, as technology is quickly progressing in that way!

Everyone reading my comments regularly knows that my bet for the next generation manned fighter aircraft for the Russian Naval Aviation is the Su-57.

Combat UAVs can be a solution for smalller ships that have only some helicopter of the Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35 family or have not aerial combat means now. To note that in my previous comment VTOL UAVs include unmanned aircrafts of different configurations like tiltrotors, helicopters,...

Technologically the main effort to obtain it would be in the development of unmanned control technologies, but this is coming.

USN experience with DASH unmanned small helicopter for ASW was a disaster, but it was almost 50 years ago!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:I see that many people on this Forum are great fans of VTOL/STOVL aircraft, but without serious grounds. With existing technology nobody can build VTOL / STOVL aircraft whose performance will be adequate and similar to those of SU-27/MiG29 family, not to mention SU-57. Combat UAVs could be appropriate solution, as technology is quickly progressing in that way!

Kubor, I m not sure what is your background in design of jet fighters to support your claims? First of all Russians already decided to replace MiG-29k and Su-33 by new VSTOL fighter.
Chinese are developing own VSTOL fighter too.

BTW MiG-29k performance? is just  slightly over 30 yold Yak-141. with 30% stronger engines.  Range is the same (OK Yak had a bit longer ;-) and Mi g has 25 years of improvements. Get real mate.

kumbor wrote:
Please compare with the status of early 70s -
{}

Today, with 19 destroyers/frigates. no matter how cosmically advanced and equipped they are, RN cannot defend even their homeland shores, not to mention strategically important Western approaches and vast area of North Atlantic. UK SSNs are among finest, but there are too few of them! Think logically... one ship cannot be on two places at the same time. Sea is vast. sea is cruel, and many ships need refit in regular intervals.
Not to mention RNs incapability to man even existing naval force. No men to man the ships, low salary, problems with training, lack of funding. Richard Compton Hall and John E Moore even in 80s predicted time when RN will not be capable to support itself. That time has come!

But defending from whom? Only Russia is potential threat. No need for bigger fleet.

@Gunship Democracy MiG-29, especially very advanced K, and MiG-35 variants completely outclass Yak-141 in speed, climbing, manoeuvrability and armament. No need for detailed argumentation. Look any reference data and compare. Maybe Russia started development of STOVL aircraft, I don`t deny that, but the development needs some 15 years from now on!

I am talking about potential threat also. So called GIUK gap - vast area between Greenland, Iceland and UK was for last 70 years the main area of strategic engagement for RN. Western approaches also! Solely these two areas are a couple million square miles. Irish sea, Channel and half of North sea added. Royal Navy has not even slightest possibility of effective control of these areas of "life importance". Shame! If you aren`t aware of that, it`s your problem.

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5ab1fe8de44a9438327dd11c/gibridonosec-rossiia-razrabatyvaet-novyi-tip-korablei-ne-suscestvovavshii-ranee-5c053a9a8fcf080452324450?from=feed

Maybe Russia started development of STOVL aircraft, I don`t deny that, but the development needs some 15 years from now on!

And they did it several times before and ended up with mediocre aircraft that had no military value...

The Yak-36 was probably the worst with no combat capability at all... so they needed a complete redesign... the Yak-38, which was pitiful.

Next came the Yak-41 which was not really much of an improvement and was not better than contemporary aircraft of the time... MiG-29K and Su-33... the former was rejected and the Su-33 was used despite being slightly too big for the carrier.

GarryB wrote:

Maybe Russia started development of STOVL aircraft, I don`t deny that, but the development needs some 15 years from now on!

And they did it several times before and ended up with mediocre aircraft that had no military value...

The Yak-36 was probably the worst with no combat capability at all... so they needed a complete redesign... the Yak-38, which was pitiful.

Next came the Yak-41 which was not really much of an improvement and was not better than contemporary aircraft of the time... MiG-29K and Su-33... the former was rejected and the Su-33 was used despite being slightly too big for the carrier.

Until F-35 emerged there was no supersonic STOVL aircraft, GarryB. In 1994 Russia commercially sold COMPLETE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR YAK-41 TO USA. Without that foolish action, development of F-35B could have been postponed for at least five years! Russia gave full technical solution for main engine, for thrust vectoring nozzle and much more. Yak 41/141 was 1,6M multipurpose aircraft with full fighter capability, with a capable fighter radar (type of Zhuk) and sufficient 2.000kg normal / 4.000kg. overload armament carrying capability.
SU-33 was adopted as Pogosyan`s bulldozer like business policy was successful. Otherwise, MiG-29K was completely up to the role - and much smaller.

Is a pic of a Wasp class LHD

Text describes basically an LHD too

I'm not opposed to the idea but I don't see anything 'without analogues' there

Until F-35 emerged there was no supersonic STOVL aircraft, GarryB

Not true... Yak-41 is the obvious.

There is also some speculation that the Yak-38M was capable of supersonic speed in a dive.

Without that foolish action, development of F-35B could have been postponed for at least five years!

And the rest, their TVC engine technology up to that point was jet deflection paddles in the F-29/F-31.

Even the British couldn't manage afterburning jet engine thrust being deflected 95 degrees...

Yak 41/141 was 1,6M multipurpose aircraft with full fighter capability, with a capable fighter radar (type of Zhuk) and sufficient 2.000kg normal / 4.000kg. overload armament carrying capability.

I strongly disagree... they had a basic framework for a fighter, but it was no where near an operational aircraft... not even close.

SU-33 was adopted as Pogosyan`s bulldozer like business policy was successful. Otherwise, MiG-29K was completely up to the role - and much smaller.

MiG-29K was a fully multirole fighter bomber able to perform air to air and air to surface and air to ground roles, but the Russian Navy only wanted an interceptor that could deal with Harpoon over the horizon from the ships it was operating from.

The Su-33 was not more expensive and was exactly what they wanted... a case of MiG trying too hard to provide capabilities that the Navy didn't need.

They made the same mistake with the Air Force who didn't really need multirole fighter bombers, which is why they didn't buy MiG-29SMTs until some became available that were already paid for.

The F-35 is so barely supersonic I rather doubt it would actually spend any time in combat at supersonic speeds.

I'm not opposed to the idea but I don't see anything 'without analogues' there

Russia needs a "Harrier carrier" like it needs aids.

Russia needs a "Harrier carrier" like it needs aids.

They need at least 1 new true carrier be it with skijump or catapult with su-57K or the new mig they are talking about.

Agree harrier carrier would be useless but it would be good that their future helicopter carrier could carry 3 or 4 VTOL jets to use them for patrol around the fleet with a new radar and data link with redut to allow air defence missiles to hit above radar horizon.

Maybe they could upgrade 10 or so old yak-38. A new jet will be expensive since they won't have 60 fighter per carrier and certainly not 10 carriers like US.

Mig29K shares a lot with mig-35/29M so its production is cheaper.

If it is yak that make the plane it will be even more expensive since they have build like 0 jets last 30 years.

Russia needs a "Harrier carrier" like it needs aids.

Well there is a clear desire for a LHD capability to the point of constructing 2* Mistrals.

IMO if planned at the start a significant air capability is possible in a 40-45Kton LHD (Wasp/Vikramaditya size).
US claims 20 F-35s can operate off a Wasp in carrier mode so at least that should be possible & is significantly useful.

There is significant flexibility benefit since each ship can always provide carrier, helicopter carrier or landing capability vs specialist ships where the relevant specialist may be in maintenance when needed, especially when talking about numbers as low as 4 or 6 max, split between 2 fleets.

Now they can sell COMPLETE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR the YAK-41 to China & build the next generation STOVL follow on together.
They won't have enough surface ships by 2030 even w/o a CVN: