Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

Then use that experience to create a normal fighter and get ride of US fighters.

Isos wrote:Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

Then use that experience to create a normal fighter and get ride of US fighters.

The cost of designing, building and testing a plane is BILLIONS. Even the crappy Korean T50 cost billions to design and put into production. Just to take the T-50 and evolve it into a fighter cost 2B ...fighternomics are not forgiving.

Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.


100 f-35 cost billions (more than a local program for a vtol jet) and they go in US pockets. And they keep being US dogs controled by the US that can make those f-35 as flyable as a horse shit by stoping supply of spare parts if korean gov doesn't obei and switch for russian/chinese/european/local firms instead of US firms in the civilian or military market.


Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

Isos wrote:Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.


100 f-35 cost billions (more than a local program for a vtol jet) and they go in US pockets. And they keep being US dogs controled by the US that can make those f-35 as flyable as a horse shit by stoping supply of spare parts if korean gov doesn't obei and switch for russian/chinese/european/local firms instead of US firms in the civilian or military market.


Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane. if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2). The T-50 was the best Korea could come up with with US assistance, they are now working on the KF-X. Even using GE-414 engines this is a 9B R&D effort. (just R&D)

Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

The Yak-141 was never an operational aircraft, and was never anything more than a prototype... it never had functional avionics or even radar or systems, and its operational payload was likely going to be mounted on four wing pylons only... and most of the time would be two R-77s and two R-73s and a single 30mm cannon.

Current MiG-29KR has better payload and better range and better speed and is an actual aircraft and would be cheaper to operate and maintain.

Or just do the logical and cost effective thing and use F-35

The F-35 is nothing like cost effective... it is the opposite... vastly more expensive while not being more capable than all sorts of alternatives...

In fact it would be cheaper for them to invest in developing EMALS systems to launch conventional fighters because at least the technology will be useful.

They get no advantage from owning F-35s because they would get no access to any of the technology at all.

Saves loads of money and decades of time, whatever they make will be inferior to F-35 they can barely build trainer jets

Except trainer jets could be fitted with AESA radars and modern AAMs and be superior to F-35s.

And why would they want to get rid of US fighters? They have been dominating the Norks for decades thanks to them

The conflict between north and south korea continues because the US wants military bases in South Korea and Japan and Australia to keep forces close to China... it was always about China.

Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.

Money invested in their own economy, but requires talent and very specific skills that are not that much use for anything else... so once it is designed and built what are they going to do? Move to US and fix F-35s problems?

Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

South Korea are not like other US vassals... they can spend their own money and buy what they like if they really wanted to. They could order Su-35s if they wanted or something newer that isn't fundamentally broken...

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane.

Oh please... Rafales cost more than that... I mean I realise the French really screwed the Indians, but the US are not nice either... 100 F-35s at probably 200 million each (with parts and support) will cost 20 billion at the very least and that is being super generous.

Making your own parts does not make planes cheaper... it actually makes them more expensive... but it means you make money when others order planes...

if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2).

Which on its own proves your estimate of 10 billion for 100 F-35s is bullshit.

The Japs make expensive American hardware even more expensive...

This thread is in the Russian Navy section and is for discussions about the Ivan Rogov Assault Ship class... F-35s are totally irrelevant to such a thread.

GarryB wrote:Making your own parts does not make planes cheaper... it actually makes them more expensive... but it means you make money when others order planes...

Plus the money is spent in your own country on domestic materials, goods and services so generates jobs and contributes back into the taxation base.  Keep it up and you build your local manufacturing base and local expertise, and can protect yourself from the risks of foreign pressure.  Buying foreign gear means that the money departs and never returns.

Australia gave away its MIC manufacturing independence long ago, and we have sucking on Murican weiner ever since.

GarryB wrote:

Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

The Yak-141 was never an operational aircraft, and was never anything more than a prototype... it never had functional avionics or even radar or systems, and its operational payload was likely going to be mounted on four wing pylons only... and most of the time would be two R-77s and two R-73s and a single 30mm cannon.

Current MiG-29KR has better payload and better range and better speed and is an actual aircraft and would be cheaper to operate and maintain.

Or just do the logical and cost effective thing and use F-35

The F-35 is nothing like cost effective... it is the opposite... vastly more expensive while not being more capable than all sorts of alternatives...

In fact it would be cheaper for them to invest in developing EMALS systems to launch conventional fighters because at least the technology will be useful.

They get no advantage from owning F-35s because they would get no access to any of the technology at all.

Saves loads of money and decades of time, whatever they make will be inferior to F-35 they can barely build trainer jets

Except trainer jets could be fitted with AESA radars and modern AAMs and be superior to F-35s.

And why would they want to get rid of US fighters? They have been dominating the Norks for decades thanks to them

The conflict between north and south korea continues because the US wants military bases in South Korea and Japan and Australia to keep forces close to China... it was always about China.

Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.

Money invested in their own economy, but requires talent and very specific skills that are not that much use for anything else... so once it is designed and built what are they going to do? Move to US and fix F-35s problems?

Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

South Korea are not like other US vassals... they can spend their own money and buy what they like if they really wanted to. They could order Su-35s if they wanted or something newer that isn't fundamentally broken...

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane.

Oh please... Rafales cost more than that... I mean I realise the French really screwed the Indians, but the US are not nice either... 100 F-35s at probably 200 million each (with parts and support) will cost 20 billion at the very least and that is being super generous.

Making your own parts does not make planes cheaper... it actually makes them more expensive... but it means you make money when others order planes...

if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2).

Which on its own proves your estimate of 10 billion for 100 F-35s is bullshit.

The Japs make expensive American hardware even more expensive...

This thread is in the Russian Navy section and is for discussions about the Ivan Rogov Assault Ship class... F-35s are totally irrelevant to such a thread.

These are just flyaway costs, who knows what the indian deal included. When Russia orders planes from Sukhoi they probably also quote flyaway costs as support is done by VKS staff and parts are not budgeted at time of purchase. If you look at Canada full lifetime op costs for about 70 F-35 its about 100B that is probably quite close to a total cost but cheap does not exist in this game.

Plus the money is spent in your own country on domestic materials, goods and services so generates jobs and contributes back into the taxation base. Keep it up and you build your local manufacturing base and local expertise, and can protect yourself from the risks of foreign pressure. Buying foreign gear means that the money departs and never returns.

To a degree yes, but beware the trap... we are talking about naval carrier based planes so they will never need more than maybe 150 planes at the very best, which means making your own is actually hard to justify unless you have customers for another 3,000 of them you can make for them. The problem is that those other countries will want to make their own and not let you make them for all the same reasons you wanted to make them, so 10 countries buying 50 aircraft each all spend way too much money setting up production in their own country to make just 50 planes which will then cost 4-5 times more than if they bought them off the original supplier.

I personally don't make my own TV or Car, but I do upgrade my desktop computer from time to time. With my desktop computer I can incrementally upgrade different things at a time and get new computing performance without needing to buy a completely new computer every time.

For someone who knows about as much about computers as I know about cars then it makes more sense to give the computer to your little sister or brother and buy yourself a new computer every 3-4 years...

Australia gave away its MIC manufacturing independence long ago, and we have sucking on Murican weiner ever since.

Ironic really... they gave up all sorts of things they were good at but took on things that just didn't make sense like growing their own rice... a water intensive crop in a desert... and they would rather burn coal than use wind or sun power for energy....

If you look at Canada full lifetime op costs for about 70 F-35 its about 100B that is probably quite close to a total cost but cheap does not exist in this game.

Nothing is cheap, but France is effectively robbing them blind and demanding India thank them for the privilege...

No wonder the US is interested... they act like stupid little school girls around France or the US when it comes to costs for military equipment, yet with Russia they haggle down to the last rupee even though they are a fraction of the cost of the western equivalent...

Sometimes I think Russia should quadruple their charges so the Indians will think it must be super high tech and they are getting value for money...

What alternatives?

Is there some other VTOL fighter jet on the market that I haven't heard about?

Make bigger carriers and use real fighters. You end up with a much better product too.

A Tu-160 costs more to buy and operate than an Su-34, but for the jobs the Tu-160 is intended for it is worth it.

Su-35 can't operate even from a supercarrier let alone this small one that Koreans are building

India and South Korea intend to use their "carriers" to support US operations against China. South Korean and Indian based Su-35s could perform the same missions at a fraction of the cost an F-35 could manage.

Only reason Koreans are even making this ship is because there is VTOL jet available for purchase

Without it there wouldn't be any Korean carrier program (or Japanese or Turkish)

Honestly these carriers are meaningless... they would be better off with no carrier at all... a helicopter AEW aircraft could spot low flying targets which could then be engaged with long range SAMs.

GarryB wrote:
Honestly these carriers are meaningless... they would be better off with no carrier at all... a helicopter AEW aircraft could spot low flying targets which could then be engaged with long range SAMs.

Carriers are a great peactime platform for policing sea lanes, in a real shooting war or for power projection against a advanced country they are not useful. For beating up the usual victims they are useful...for now. But even that is changing with the evolution of both seaborne and flying unmanned vehicles.

This is the Russian Navy thread, so in terms of the Russian Navy how many hot naval battles do you expect to happen in the next 50-100 years?

The point is that the normal state of affairs for the Russian Navy since WWII has been peace time operations.

Sure they might have delivered special forces to some place in Africa or Asia or central or south america, but in terms of operations they are and will be operating in peace time mode.

Because Russian carriers provide air support and also provide AWACS platforms and fighter air defence they are extremely valuable in attack and defence and make surface groups of ships vastly more useful and also much safer too.

There is lots of talk about drones but there is equally plenty of talk about anti drone weapons... and airburst 30mm and 57mm shells as well as much larger calibre airburst shells are packed in large numbers on most Russian ships... pretty much all of them have at least one 30mm gatling, as well as mountings for heavy machine guns too.

Lack of fire power has never been an issue for Russian and Soviet ships.

Bigger ships means longer endurance... small ships would be fine for Russian waters, but land based missiles and aircraft already have that covered. For world wide operations a larger ship is better able to defend itself and the ships and subs around it.

No ship is invulnerable, it would be stupid to expect it to be.

Big aircraft carriers make groups of Russian ships safer and more capable in both attack and defence... they might end up with mostly drones, but land based nuclear powered unlimited range drones can't replace aircraft carriers... it wont run out of fuel but will run out of munitions and weapons and it will be a long vulnerable flight home to rearm...

A bigger carrier means bigger more effective aircraft can be operated... and that is manned and unmanned aircraft.

They can use clever design to make a big ship that is lighter... I have no problem with a 40K ton cat design with a wide hull and huge hangar and aircraft capacity better than the current CV... the ship does not have to be a 90K ton goliath... but it needs to be large.

Do all these morons whom are suggesting that these landing ships be repurposed as useless carriers seriously think that Russia is incapable of making a proper carrier? It would cost more to develop a half decent 5th gen vtol than it would do build two 500m long super duper carriers.

If the Russian navy really wants to waste its whole budget thay can draw it from the bank and flush it down the toilet.

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Isos wrote:

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Well considering the reliability of any claims made by the vtol crowd I would not hold my breath, but If that is the case the men responsible should be rounded up and shot.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Well considering the reliability of any claims made by the vtol crowd I would not hold my breath, but If that is the case the men responsible should be rounded up and shot.

I disagree. Having planes above your fleet with a good radar and datalink will make your fleet tens of times more survivable. Even if it is a VTOL.

They can be armed with air to air missiles to attack enemy planes or missiles but also with anti ship missiles.

A carrier with su-57 and AWACS is better but more expensive and not planned (navy chief said that when they exposed the last modek of carrier at an expo).

Vtol is not as good as normal fighter but certainly better than helicopters.


Moreover, they have the yak 141 engine configuration and su-57 work (radar, stealth, missiles...). Now they just need to integrate both in one design. Lot of the work is already done. F-35 was made from 0.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Do all these morons whom are suggesting that these landing ships be repurposed as useless carriers seriously think that Russia is incapable of making a proper carrier? It would cost more to develop a half decent 5th gen vtol than it would do build two 500m long super duper carriers.

If the Russian navy really wants to waste its whole budget thay can draw it from the bank and flush it down the toilet.

Agree that VMF does not need fake carriers because of some BS claims that they are bankrupt. I am in fact sick and tired of hearing this crap, even from people that supposedly is knowledgeable about Russia. Not a single solid budgetary figure comes from them, but "Russia cannot afford"... BS

That being said, if you get a STOVL platform that is not specially expensive to develop and you find a viable export market for it, why not? I already proposed a way that may make sense, saving a lot in development and avoiding ruining the related CTOL platform, but of course the idea has limitations and the business case for the whole issue is questionable.

Isos wrote:40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Not necessarily, a 20 kt UDK is still very limited in terms of helicopters and landing forces that it can carry. If you want to be able to land a substantial fighting force you need a big vessel or rather several of them, therefore a big UDK is simply more efficient. The flight deck is not going to grow very much from 20 to 40 kt, but the internal space for equipment, marines and crews will do, substantially.

A carrier with su-57 and AWACS is better but more expensive and not planned (navy chief said that when they exposed the last modek of carrier at an expo).

What do you mean with "not planned"? Maybe concrete plans with TTZ, budget and schedule is not, but the VMF has said many times they will get carriers and even have said they will be nuclear with 70 kt.

What do you mean with "not planned"? Maybe concrete plans with TTZ, budget and schedule is not, but the VMF has said many times they will get carriers and even have said they will be nuclear with 70 kt.

That's exactly what "not planned" means.

Isos wrote: That's exactly what "not planned" means.

To me they have plans, just not concrete plans that we know. I am not too concerned about rhetoric you know. Keep attention though, at the speed the shipbuilding is taking off, it should not take long until we hear something more concrete. As an example, 4 units of 22350 were laid in the 13 years between 2006 and 2019, and in the last two years the same amount of ships has already started construction and two more will be added probably this year. Once roadblocks are removed things will accelerate.

Big ships are still build very slowly. Carrier of 70kt aren't for soon that's for sure.

All this talk about a Russian super carrier, how long is it taking just to overhaul the one they have, and its not even an especially deep overhaul. Dock sank, gotta build a new dock whatever. The USA takes 5-7 years to build a supercarrier and they have a steady and refined process and skill base to do so. So Russia would take what? 15 years for the first and maybe 8 years for the second? If you accept that Russia is not gonna be in any major naval battles, I don't understand why a 40K hybrid carrier is a joke? Would anyone dare to challange a USN group with a Wasp class in the center with F-35 VTOLs? I doubt it. If you put an EMALS on and can do 70 sorties/day, how many airforces in the world can challange you from land let alone in the mid ocean? How many nations can challange a task force with De Gaulle at the center even if it only had 25 Rafales on board?