Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

If not the S-500, the S-400s r already defending the RFE, Kaliningrad & soon Crimea with up to 400 km, 215.98 nmi range:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-set-to-deploy-more-s400-anti-aircraft-missiles-in-crimea-59754

In November 2015, it was announced that when the Kirov-class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov was recommissioned with the Russian Navy in 2018, it will be equipped with the 48N6DMK anti-aircraft missile derived from the land-based S-400. The inclusion of the 48N6DMK into the Kirov's arsenal extends its air defense range from 100 km (62 mi; 54 nmi) with the 48N6E2 missile from the S-300FM to 250 km (160 mi; 130 nmi). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system#Deployment

Placed on ships/barges just near the outer entrance to EEZ (200 nmi out) & protected by escorts & subs will keep CSGs 415.98 nmi away from the coast. Extrapolating, if the Su-30 with radius of 810 nmi now in service mid-air refueled at the outer edge of the EEZ, then CSGs can be kept up to 1,010 nmi away from the coast.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30#Specifications_(Su-27PU/Su-30)

OHR will detect a CSG as it's a/c won't be sitting idle in hangars & on decks, but will be patrolling & training. With that many flying over the ocean for hours, if not days, it'll be ID'd as such long before it's anywhere close to Russia's EEZ or forces deployed in the ME. Plus a few SSNs/SSGNs/SSKs off the US coasts/in mid-ocean/Med. Sea that can detect familiar noises from 100s of miles away & send warnings to Moscow.
"War is politics by other means", & "politics is the art of the possible".
Until the RF economy is the size of China's, I doubt the former will be able to have CVNs in the foreseeable future. Comparing the US naval needs & mil. doctrine with those of the RF or even PRC's is like comparing apples & oranges. Most of the RF foreign trade is over land,  rivers/inland seas, & any future mil. interventions likely won't be outside of the Eastern or even Northern Hemisphere. Duplicating the USN supercarriers now isn't economically nor militarily justified or even feasible. It's the reverse of the Cold War when the USSR had the advantage in tanks but NATO had advantage in anti-tank systems along with tactical nukes, incl. neutron warheads:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiBjIqcu_vXAhVS22MKHUoOBAYQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airforcemag.com%2FMagazineArchive%2FPages%2F2017%2FDecember%25202017%2FThe-Neutron-Bomb.aspx&usg=AOvVaw1mbg62nNDU9lKfs1sJl_4p
I agree: the use of tactical nukes, esp. at sea, won't automatically lead to full nuclear exchange.[/b]

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.

Please note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

Notes:
Aircraft composition: Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots
Displacement: 26,000 tonnes


Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Pure transport: 25 NH90



So either 11 STVOL +6 fighters in mixed role or 25 STVOL + 6 fighters in AC role. Fairly small for AC standards and universal. That's to me a kind of ship RuN migh tlike.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.

Please note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

Notes:
Aircraft composition: Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots
Displacement: 26,000 tonnes


Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Pure transport: 25 NH90



So either 11 STVOL +6 fighters in mixed role or  25 STVOL + 6 fighters in AC role. Fairly small for AC standards and universal.  That's to me  a kind of ship RuN migh tlike.

Yet, Juan Carlos design lost in RuNAV tender for LHD aganist Mistral.

Militarov wrote:...Yet, Juan Carlos design lost in RuNAV tender for LHD aganist Mistral.

Prior to '14 Ukraine?

Might has well be a different century. This is the new era.

Militarov wrote:

Yet, Juan Carlos design lost in RuNAV tender for LHD aganist Mistral.

Because deal was never about AC but France weight against Spain in EU was a decisive factor.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Until the RF economy is the size of China's,

Wont be ever, not enough people. But "even" size of current Japanese is very good.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
interventions likely won't be outside of the Eastern or even Northern Hemisphere. Duplicating the USN supercarriers now isn't economically nor militarily justified or even feasible. It's the reverse of the Cold War when the USSR had the advantage in tanks but NATO had advantage in anti-tank systems along with tactical nukes, incl. neutron warheads:

NATO in tactical nukes?! Ialwasy thought that in numbers Russia since Soviet times kept superiority in no of tactical nukes. BTW Recent refurbishment heavy nuclear capable mortars says about tactical nukes usage is not outta menu.

https://www.armscontrol.org//sites/default/files/images/Factsheets/WarheadInventories_171003.png
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

Tsavo Lion wrote:
I agree: the use of tactical nukes, esp. at sea, won't automatically lead to full nuclear exchange.[/b]

P-700/P500 and even Onyx (in version Kh-61) can carry nuclear warheads ip to 350kt. How many do you think is enough to destroy Us carrier group? because this is main task of such missiles.



BTW an interesting fragment in Russian wikicfor P-800
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Оникс_(противокорабельная_ракета)

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

that is anywhere enough planes to form a CBG but okay? if this is for carrier duties that's not enough space.

space for what precisely? 25 planes are not to do Midway style battles. t\This is over since 45. in fact mucho less is enough. Those is to defend group and most important expand radio horizon for long range missiles.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

that is anywhere enough planes to form a CBG but okay? if this is for carrier duties that's not enough space.

space for what  precisely? 25 planes are not to do Midway style battles. t\This is over since 45.  in fact mucho less is enough. Those is to defend group and most important  expand radio horizon for long range missiles.

You are being too generous. Yes it's for group defense and expanding radio horizon but 80% of the time it will be for scaring low tier countries into behaving properly same as any other one in use now.

Result of the fact that for some dumb reason people are still more afraid of airplanes than cruise missiles. As someone who seen and felt both I can tell you it's quite a faulty presumption.

But that's how things are. And big ships make you look cool...even in this day and age for some reason. Humans are simple​ creatures.

On the other hand we should remember that bombs are cheaper than cruise missiles so fiscal responsibility also comes into play even in post industrial neo-colonialism.

GarryB wrote:
On land a defence against enemy attack via cruise missile or any other type of missile is much more effective with airpower included.

That is exactly what I said. Never mentioned that land based forces only like Russians never embraced layered AA defence concept.

GarryB wrote:
In terms of scouting and looking for targets ground based assets would be as slow as naval vessels to find out what that blip on the radar means that is 200km away from you. Being able to send out aircraft to check is much more useful.

Drone or satellite with 30cm resolution is not enough? Sunflower mobile OTH has like 500km range.

GarryB wrote:

An AWACS platform greatly improves that radar coverage and reach and can manage a defence so the surface vessels are even safer.

A little corvette sitting low in the water does not have the radar or sight range to hit air targets 400km away but load it with the late model S-400 based large SAMs and provide target data from aircraft near the enemy and those small vessels could defend or attack from a huge distance away.

no need for S-400 is you have UAVs satellite corrected missiles. S-400 can be either ashore based or... on Russian cruisers.

GarryB wrote:

1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7 both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

They have developed the technology, and further improved it, but they currently only have one Kondor satellite in operation which is not enough for full planetary coverage,

They have Pion and Liana constellation for that purpose. I'd assume that even without global coverage yet most important directions are fairly covered. Pls read my post for details

GarryB wrote:

2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression. First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

If you listen to western navy professionals a carrier is both all powerful and can see all but also invisible and super stealthy.

Obviously it is not, but a lack of carrier or more specifically air support a Russian group of ships would be more vulnerable without air support than not.

That's why first RuN ships are operating close to bases and second Russia is planning small carriers?



[quote="GarryB"]
Bases in Sudan or Yemen or Syria or Vietnam or Cuba or where ever means eventually they want to expand their area of operations out to the open ocean and that means they need aircraft support that can move with them.

3) Russians developed both navy and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses

OTH Radar in Cuba would be something or even Venzuela

GarryB wrote:
Not every situation will warrant an expeditionary force of aircraft like the one to Syria.

A carrier would make Russian ships safer when they operate far from Russia.

Second that but first priority is defending homeland.

GarryB wrote:

Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.

Tracking but no reliable ID capability.

what do you mean by Id? like large AC group you must identify if running with 30knots towards your shores group of large ships is just fishing trawlers?

GarryB wrote:

In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32 Tu-22Ms and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava cruisers?

They also developed the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov and the Ulyanovsk etc etc.

sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.

A carrier group increases the depth of the defence of a surface fleet. It does not matter how many missiles your ship has or how many targets it can shoot down at once or their range.... any missile can defeat its defences with numbers at once. A carrier wont change this, but it will dramatically increase the number of incoming missiles that will be defeated before you start losing ships.

even if one had nuke warhead is enough.

BTW from Russian wiki for P-800

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

GarryB wrote:
Aircraft also offer the possibility of engaging the enemy before they launch some of their missiles... send out a naval PAK FA with four external R-37Ms and a Zircon under its belly and it could potentially kill a destroyer before it could launch any of its anti ship missiles and shoot down one or two Hawkeyes supporting the F-35s operating nearby too.... they don't have that many Hawkeyes so the loss of even one would be devastating for them."

True but this is again question of layered defense. 800 miles PAK-FA radius keeps 22800 safe + 600 miles for zircon keeps 1400 miles A2/AD zone for any carrier group.

GarryB wrote:

The US loves to have superiority, without it the US does not the same. Small aircraft carriers for Russia only helps to keep the current superiority of the US aircraft carrier groups.

In my opinion you get the same benefit of air component support from a medium carrier as you do with a heavy or super carrier, because the key is long range conventional fighters and AWACS aircraft support.

This is why I don't think much of a small carrier with VSTOL or STOVL aircraft.

For taska of 40' Midway style battles no. For any other tasks more than enough. BTW F-35B on US carriers will not be STVOL one? Cannot carry BVR sat or drone AWACS corrected missiles?

GarryB wrote:
IMHO three medium carriers is better than one super carrier, but even 20 light carriers are not better than either one super carrier or three medium carriers

from follows function? Function of Russian ACs IMHO are not air battles of intimidating desert nations with tribal structures. But protecting of long range missile carriers/ on subs / anti sub warfare

GarryB wrote:
It is funny because the accelerated the retirement of the F-14 because they said the Russian threat was reduced and F-18s were good enough... but with no Phoenix missiles they are much more vulnerable to even Kh-22Ms let alone Kh-32s.

Not that F-14Ds upgraded with AMRAAM could hit Kh-22Ms at 40km altitude on their approach.

They still developed BVR missiles AIM-152 but not yet used on -F-18 AFAIK. And yes not Kh-22 but Kh-40000 m ceiling and 5400 speed is making effective envelope for AEGIS very limited if they can track and hot missile with this speed.

GarryB wrote:

Having UKSK launchers that are much more compact than the Granit launchers means the internal aircraft hangar could be enlarged... they could configure it to operate large UAVs as well, or even tethered air ships..

Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

Finally, now we're talking

PapaDragon wrote:.

On the other hand we should remember that bombs are cheaper than cruise missiles so fiscal responsibility also comes into play even in post industrial neo-colonialism.

What neo-colonialism? colonialism never stopped

Well compare costs 22160 or even 22350M with Nimitz group. Not sure what is cheaper... For mountain tribes UACVs or STVOL is more than enough

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.

On the other hand we should remember that bombs are cheaper than cruise missiles so fiscal responsibility also comes into play even in post industrial neo-colonialism.

What neo-colonialism? colonialism never stopped  

Well compare costs 22160 or even  22350M with Nimitz group. Not sure what is cheaper...  For mountain tribes UACVs or STVOL is more than enough

I known it never stopped but we gotta keep up appearances​, right?

As for mountain tribes yes, STOVL is more than enough.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:..................

Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

South Korea already solved it with Dokdo-class. Take this one, install reactor which will also halve the size of tower, kick the tower to the side, offset weight with elevator on the other end, install ski ramp and make sure front end of deck is also rectangular. Stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage. Done.

Would not be better to take example from the lord instead?

The US solved it with this one:



And Russia seems to be doing it with the Project 23000. Fairly correct.

To note that to have air superiority thanks to land support it is necessary to be very near of the coast (fairly less than 1000Km), because the range of the land based fighters and air defense (still the SA-21 S-400 marks the longest air defense range from the coast) is limited. It means that a Russian aircraft carrier group must be on par in the number and quality of the shipborne fighters and air defense. Only strategic bombers and surface-surface missiles can reach longer range from the coast. This is why a see only an aircraft carrier on par, leading an aircraft carrier group on par, can make an effective deterrence vs the standard aircraf carrier groups of the adversary.

US did solve it. You got that right (even broken clock is right twice a day though...)

...

Russia is doing great by not allowing reality constrain their construction plans.

In light of that I feel they should forgo unambitious projects like  23000 Shtorm-class and just jump onto EVA1-class.

Very enlightening to say that the US solved it right, but Russia should forget the right solution.

Just cuirious to see how some people talks about the counter the B-2 and about to follow the US on strategic bombers, where the US strategy proved to be a complete failure, and in this case, when the US does right, no-one of them wants Russia following the US. It says very much about what this people wants really for Russia.

Despite what some people desperately wants here, difficult to distract Russia from the right way.

We actually desperately wish for you to stop posting BS in general. Same 10 posts over and over with same words in different order.

Distract Russia from what? Mockup building? Iran and Serbia do it better, sorry.

Explain us please, in how many areas of military equipment Russia can not reach 1/10 of the US arsenals in order to identify correctly from where comes really the BS.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
interventions likely won't be outside of the Eastern or even Northern Hemisphere. Duplicating the USN supercarriers now isn't economically nor militarily justified or even feasible. It's the reverse of the Cold War when the USSR had the advantage in tanks but NATO had advantage in anti-tank systems along with tactical nukes, incl. neutron warheads:

NATO in tactical nukes?!

I didn't mean they had the advantage in them, just that they were deployed & ready for use.
Canada, Australia, Argentina, & recently Brazil, all island nations, decided not to have true a/c carriers. India wants them to defend against PRC & Pakistan. But Russia now has enough means to defend her huge landmass, incl. on the most exposed Northern flank, against CSGs/MEUs of all types w/o having to build & deploy her CBGs. http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2017-12-08/11_976_nord.html

I also expect that at least some of her future CV/CVNs will retain Ash/LAMs under the flight deck to save on extra escorts & for basing in the Black Sea.

Singular_Transform wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

How the SM6 can kill the onyx/granit?

I mean, that is a long range missile, with active seeker.

it can be useful against say big, slow moving aircrafts, but how can it kill supersonic missiles?

SM6 was used aganist MRBM in tests, so i ask back, why not?

It has active seeker, but it has intertial guidance too to reach POI.

They used it also aganist GQM-163 which is beyond fast target.

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:...Yet, Juan Carlos design lost in RuNAV tender for LHD aganist Mistral.

Prior to '14 Ukraine?

Might has well be a different century. This is the new era.

I am looking at it simply as design, i am putting political issues aside in this case

I also expect that at least some of her future CV/CVNs will retain Ash/LAMs under the flight deck to save on extra escorts & for basing in the Black Sea.

All new and most upgraded Russian ships from carrier to corvette and including pretty likely all subs except specialist and SSBN will have UKSK launchers.

For a carrier the UKSK offers high speed rapid reaction anti sub capability, which would be very useful.

To a lessor extent it also offers land attack and anti ship performance... 500-700km range Granits replaced by 1,000km range Zircons.

I have no evidence to back this up but the Russians are not stupid and will develop other things to fit into those tubes that might be useful for a ship.

Drones or other useful things could easily be developed to fit into a tube that could be used for a range of things.

I would love to see a naval gunfire support vessel fitted with some Koalition turrets with the twin barrels and perhaps a couple of 203mm gun turrets upgraded the same way the army 152mm guns have been upgraded to create the koalition.

With that sort of fire power a few long range drones that can loiter above the target area at high or medium altitude for a day or so would be a useful loadout for one of its UKSK launch tubes... especially if it can be made recoverable with a large net for it to fly into or something for easy recovery.

GarryB wrote:

I also expect that at least some of her future CV/CVNs will retain Ash/LAMs under the flight deck to save on extra escorts & for basing in the Black Sea.

All new and most upgraded Russian ships from carrier to corvette and including pretty likely all subs except specialist and SSBN will have UKSK launchers.

For a carrier the UKSK offers high speed rapid reaction anti sub capability, which would be very useful.

whats more UKSK-M you can load AA missiles

I would love to see a naval gunfire support vessel fitted with some Koalition turrets with the twin barrels and perhaps a couple of 203mm gun turrets upgraded the same way the army 152mm guns have been upgraded to create the koalition.
.

Unlikely, that new caliber will be developed.  But currently there are rocket powered with satellite guidance for Kolitsya.

https://rg.ru/2017/11/14/rossijskij-snariad-s-raketnym-dvigatelem-porazit-protivnika-za-70-km.html

With that sort of fire power a few long range drones  that can loiter above the target area at high or medium altitude for a day or so would be a useful loadout for one of its UKSK launch tubes... especially if it can be made recoverable with a large net for it to fly into or something for easy recovery.

That would be good for subs or corvettes to get short lived AWACS before salvo. For AC much better are SCAT like machines or even  UACV convertoplanes + STOVL fighters

Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told the press that the State Arms Program of 2018-2025 laid experimental development work to create a plane for vertical take-off and landing for aircraft carriers. According to the deputy minister, this and other aircraft will replace the existing deck aviation. https://slovodel.com/504902-vozrozhdenie-yak-141-rossiya-vozvrashchaet-samolety-vertikalnogo-vzleta?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2007&utm_content=1387522&utm_campaign=2616

As I posted regarding the Yak-141 follow on before! Another confirmation that they plan to build small/medium sized CV/Ns 1st. Better than none!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told the press that the State Arms Program of 2018-2025 laid experimental development work to create a plane for vertical take-off and landing for aircraft carriers. According to the deputy minister, this and other aircraft will replace the existing deck aviation. https://slovodel.com/504902-vozrozhdenie-yak-141-rossiya-vozvrashchaet-samolety-vertikalnogo-vzleta?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2007&utm_content=1387522&utm_campaign=2616

As I posted regarding the Yak-141 follow on before! Another confirmation that they plan to build small/medium sized CV/Ns 1st. Better than none!

Borisov said nothing about a fighter. He is talking about a plane, and also said nothing about the Yak-141. He said nothing about small or big aircraft carriers.

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told the press that the State Arms Program of 2018-2025 laid experimental development work to create a plane for vertical take-off and landing for aircraft carriers. According to the deputy minister, this and other aircraft will replace the existing deck aviation. https://slovodel.com/504902-vozrozhdenie-yak-141-rossiya-vozvrashchaet-samolety-vertikalnogo-vzleta?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2007&utm_content=1387522&utm_campaign=2616

As I posted regarding the Yak-141 follow on before! Another confirmation that they plan to build small/medium sized CV/Ns 1st. Better than none!

Borisov said nothing about a fighter. He is talking about a plane, and also said nothing about the Yak-141. He said nothing about small or big aircraft carriers.

Try not to cut your fingers while you grasp at those straws...