Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Borisov clearly said it wont be continuation of yak-41 project. BTW unlike what GB is saying, without even bothering to check sources, Yak-141 wasn't a flawed design.

Then the new design, if it succeeds, will be even better, as I wrote before. The circle of argument is complete.
SSJs too weren't economical & crashed, but now new designs r being worked on.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Now basically it  wont fly till Su-33 does then VSTOL comes and flies . The good news is for the whole life 29k will be as new in hangars !      
...
35 failed miserably in l-st bid. Not only from political reasons. They reworked-35 again.  Now with better political relations if its has chances. BTW  35 is purely export  fighter.

It seems to me that there is a lot of wishful thinking here but maybe you are right, we will see how well it ages.

Mig don't show or talk about any progress about LMFS project. If they have the design they should show it, indian will wait or invest in it.

AWACS are critical, but in the conventional version they are very vulnerable too (in other words, not expected to last during a high intensity conflict)

Land based AWACS operate with friendly aircraft which they command and can operate near or over enemy territory, but a carrier based AWACS platform that is a Russian one and not an American one should spend most of its time operating over the Russian ships it is providing air cover for and therefore would be operating over a dozen of the most powerful air defence clusters on the planet.

The Americans might send an AWACS platform forward to manage a strike and the air cover of the retreating forces, but the Russians will be using cruise missiles for strikes so the fighters and the AWACS aircraft should spend most of their time over Russian ships...

Sounds safer to me than for most aircraft.

That is, they may attack, despite losing some assets, to wipe out the Russian fleet that interferes with their "nation destruction building" effort abroad.

Attack what exactly?

And how do you propose they "wipe out the Russian fleet"?

You are talking about Americans opening fire on Russian vessels in international waters or Venezuelan airspace and waters... really?

And when one of those ships launches a weapon at a nearby US platform, what do you expect to happen then?

How many Harpoons would the US need to launch per Russian ship to assure a hit... and how many Onyx missiles would Russia need to launch to achieve the same?

The US have a lot of ships... how many are they prepared to lose over Venezuela?

Russia plans to build another vessel called The Leader, which will break through ice up to 4.5 metres thick, and keep the Northern Sea Route and Arctic coast open all year round.
As reported by The Mirror, Alexei Rakhmanov, president of United Shipbuilding Corporation, added: "This means that an all year round navigation along the Northern Sea Route will take place literally tomorrow.

It doesn't matter how much ice it is designed to deal with mother nature can always create a situation with more, where HE assistance is appreciated... it would also be a nice quick way to deal with Greenpeace protesters on oil rigs...

"new" from the old blueprints; we already discussed it.

No, they pretty much said it would be an all new design not based on any existing design...

I'm a mind reader I can't speak for them; if they decide to have them, that's what they'll do since it's not the 1st time they ordered Soviet/Russian aircraft.

A STOVL 5th gen fighter is going to be very expensive and take a long time to develop and get right... I doubt they would consider it at all.

The radar will be bigger than on the Ka-31 but smaller than on the E-2. Miniaturization didn't happen only with nukes.

Radar antenna is about size and element number so bigger is always better.

It & the EMALS will cost a lot more than tilt-rotors

EMALS technology will become useful in developments of all electric drive ships and vehicles anyway. And might be used to enhance the performance of existing gun based weapons to improve performance.

that could become proverbial workhorses like all those mass produced Mi-8/-17s, An-12/Y-8/-9s, C-130s & Il-76s.

Can't see it myself... those examples given tended to succeed because they were rugged and reliable and safe.

longer range with = or bigger payload.

Marketing and advertising doesn't always translate... they might manage a bigger payload than US helicopters, but that doesn't mean they can compete with Russian helicopters in terms of payload.

The permafrost is melting there, & emergencies can happen in the summer. U would need an army of contractors &/ inmates + the military to build airfields in so many remote places in an area ~ the size of all of Canada.

They are already building air strips and even railways and military bases all through the arctic... they have all sorts of suitable vehicles for that sort of thing.


An An-2 can pretty much land anywhere and there are versions with floats and skis too.

No, they can fly safer in worse conditions than helos. Higher ceiling & speed means they can avoid the bad weather & mountains in high winds & low visibility. Cut off areas can be reached faster, saving lives. They can also self-deploy there & around the World instead of being delivered by ships, rail, An-124s &/ "Slons".

Just saying it doesn't make it true I am afraid.

Ground personnel can pour some water to make a thicker ice pad in minutes or sweep the snow from the ice beneath it. The Americans use gravel & chemicals to keep the dust down in Iraq & Afghanistan to prevent it:

New thermal DAS systems as fitted to new Hinds means it shouldn't be a problem in terms of visibility in the future.

Russia doesn't have such planes, which will cost $Ms to develop, but has the Yak-41 already designed & flown.

MiG-29KR and Su-33... and most of their MiG-29 and Su-27 and Su-25 land based aircraft in frontal aviation train to operate from sections of motor way...



Their newer generation aircraft will be lower drag and lighter with more installed thrust...

All that was better than nothing against NATO's navies; it helped in preventing the Cold War from becoming hot & defending their interests.

They would have been much better off putting more helos on the Kiev class carriers... especially something like the Ka-52K with radar and AAMs.

Peru is across the Pacific, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama & Venezuela r across the Atlantic, S. Africa is next to S. Atlantic & S. Indian oceans, & S. India is as remote by sea via Suez from Murmansk & via Malakka Strait from Vladivostok as it is from Murmansk to the Falklands & Boston, respectively.  At the 1st hint of a crisis brewing, they should set sail to prevent a small problem from becoming bigger & avoid coming there too late.

Their high speed response would be rather more useful if it was a Yasen or Gepard.

True it can but it dont in most of cases.  Normal payload for Su-33 AA mission is like 3,300kg. You dont need heavy fighter for this.

A heavy fighter with a light weapon load means more fuel capacity.


Better range or same range at higher speed...

still where is here the role for large CVN? materials  are brought by freighters. Marines on UDK/BDK. Or perhaps you've missed what the role for CVN is.

CVN brings air power to support operations away from land based air power.

I dont see why 80ktonsis better then 40-50ktons for specific dick waving exercise tasks.

Because a 40 ton dick is an empty dick that simply wont get the job done.


80 K tons means you can do the job with capacity to spare to continue after the 40K ton is done.


You can fill it up with extras... over the time of the ships operation you might decide to change from all manned aircraft to half unmanned... easier to change with a bigger ship...

Bulvava for years was failing tests and reworked Bulva accepted. They share same components. One was crap the second is in service.

Except the MiG-29 was always good enough for service, they originally were going to have both 33s operationals... Su-27K became Su-33 and they were going to call the MiG-29K the MiG-33 but the end of the cold war and the slashing of budgets and the loss of the carrier training based in Nitka meant they just used the Su-33.


Now lucky for them, they can have both like they originally intended.


But still don't understand the link with Bulava...

yet VDV was investigating tilt-rotors. You seem to be ahead of Russian military  in so many cases. If VDV decides then Russia has ready  platform for  AEW

Yeah, because the Russian Navy is really loving their BMD-4s right now... oops no, they don't use them... in fact they don't really share a lot of equipment with the VDV... so why would they bother now?

this is not happening unless you know better then Russian admirals do

No, you are right... they will totally disband their Russian naval infantry forces, or perhaps deploy them all on two Ivan Rogov ships... which will also carry their Ka-52K helicopters especially designed for carrier based naval ops...

true, yet VSTOL provides much shorter TO and landing

Fixed for you: 
true, yet VSTOL provides much shorter TO and crashing.



Yes, very efficient at crashing.

and that nobody really knows, including you

They know less creates the situation where they are paying for a capacity that might not be ready when they need it... like now with one CV where is it simply not available for a couple of years.


Two carriers are not that much more expensive and assure the capacity is available at any given time.

35 failed miserably in l-st bid. Not only from political reasons. They reworked-35 again.  Now with better political relations if its has chances. BTW  35 is purely export  fighter. 

Totally true... we are talking about the F-35 here right?

Then the new design, if it succeeds, will be even better, as I wrote before. The circle of argument is complete.

Circle jerk more like it... STOVL is a dead end money pit... RIP to the pilots...

Mig don't show or talk about any progress about LMFS project. If they have the design they should show it, indian will wait or invest in it.

Why?

What sort of foreign investment are you expecting?


India has its own light stealth fighter programmes and medium stealth fighter programmes... do you think China will invest.... or Brazil...


What exactly would be the point of advertising it?

[/quote]

GarryB wrote:Land based AWACS operate with friendly aircraft which they command and can operate near or over enemy territory, but a carrier based AWACS platform that is a Russian one and not an American one should spend most of its time operating over the Russian ships it is providing air cover for and therefore would be operating over a dozen of the most powerful air defence clusters on the planet.

The Americans might send an AWACS platform forward to manage a strike and the air cover of the retreating forces, but the Russians will be using cruise missiles for strikes so the fighters and the AWACS aircraft should spend most of their time over Russian ships...

Sounds safer to me than for most aircraft.

That would give the fleet a radar horizon of roughly 500 km. Better than that of the ships themselves, but not enough to prevent enemy aviation from approaching low altitude and attacking with ASCMs from the fringes of the AWACS detection radius, without giving you the time to shot them down and without the AWACS being able to assist the eventual fighters on CAP in the area at that time... an AWACS used that way is not a tool to dominate the airspace but rather a high-tech window to assist to your own destruction. You need forward deployed air control in order to coordinate the air battle needed to determine what side's aviation can attack the opponent's fleet. A purely defensive stance under such circumstances is a recipe for defeat IMHO.

Attack what exactly?

Your ships of course!

And how do you propose they "wipe out the Russian fleet"?

You are talking about Americans opening fire on Russian vessels in international waters or Venezuelan airspace and waters... really?

The only thing preventing that from happening is your military being capable of showing enough deterring potential. Tensions are rising and at a given time this can happen, as US elites see themselves progressively trapped and their authority being put into question. How do you think wars start?

And when one of those ships launches a weapon at a nearby US platform, what do you expect to happen then?

The scenario I am referring too is one in which the USN ships are not in range of Russian sea-launched ASMs (500-600 km currently, acc. to open sources). USN has a naval aviation after all.

How many Harpoons would the US need to launch per Russian ship to assure a hit... and how many Onyx missiles would Russia need to launch to achieve the same?

Harpoons are not terrifying weapons I agree, but they have MANY and they can easily overwhelm you if you allow them to launch. And of course there are other weapons now and in short term development, plus obviously US will try to close the gap they have in this regard, once RuN starts showing up on the high seas. For instance these Sparrow ALBMs could be adapted relatively fast to anti-ship role and they are pretty fast and long ranged. Onyx may not be in range at all, air launched missiles are needed to be on the safe side, even when Zircon appears this range issue will not change fundamentally.

The US have a lot of ships... how many are they prepared to lose over Venezuela?

I don't know. What I mean is that US has an obvious numbers advantage in such a deployment, that you need to be able to compensate by keeping them at the required distance. Or at least that is how I amateurishly analyse it  

the AWACS aircraft should spend most of their time over Russian ships...

Then they don't need Yak-44-like planes on their CVNs; for long range detection, UAVs can be used, controlled from ships &/ helos/tilt-rotors.

It doesn't matter how much ice it is designed to deal with mother nature can always create a situation with more, where HE assistance is appreciated...

They can always send a Tu-22M, Su-34 or a helo from shore to drop bombs there.

they pretty much said it would be an all new design not based on any existing design...A STOVL 5th gen fighter is going to be very expensive and take a long time to develop and get right.. technology will become useful..

They may fail in it & dust off the Yak-41 design. With EMALS, it may take as many years to prefect as the new/old Russian STOVL.

those examples given tended to succeed because they were rugged and reliable and safe.

Their tilt-rotors will be made so as well. There's the Western way with aircraft built like watches & the Russian way with them built like tools.

..that doesn't mean they can compete with Russian helicopters in terms of payload.

Often range & speed is more important. More of them can be used to move more cargo.

They are already building air strips and even railways and military bases all through the arctic..

The rest of inland Siberia & the FE is accessible year round only by air.

An An-2 can pretty much land anywhere and there are versions with floats and skis too

It can't land like a helo & in areas with rugged terrain & on icy rivers/lakes that may not be smooth enough, with no way to fix it, it will crash land, possibly killing every1.

Just saying it doesn't make it true I am afraid.

The Americans said the same thing about their V-22s. A mule can do what no horse & donkey can. The same with a Dromedary & Bactrian camel hybrid. Tough shit!

Two carriers are not that much more expensive and assure the capacity is available at any given time.

U need 3 for that. The Adm K. can be treated as 0 since by the time new CVNs r built, it'll be old & may break down at any time, even after the refit with new & unproven propulsion. Therefore, I doubt they'll deploy it to hot spots as often as to the usual training & "show the flag" areas, just like the Liaoning (CV-16).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Why Im critical about  29k? Look at history. It started over 30 years go when Sovict Union started collapsing. This means  subcontractors network, production process management were "somehow" kept. This means lower or very low quality components, frauds, deadlines not kept. Algiers,India or Russian navy.

You keep refusing to understand. They may have started a MiG-29K as long time ago as you want, the plane we are talking about is a creation of the beginning of this century. They reworked the whole structure, introduced composites, increased fuel capacity, changed completely the layout of the cockpit, included modernized engines and many other things, including changing FCS and avionics completely.

From MiG's site:

In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.

The bold part from me, to see if you finally understand that this is a "new" product, similar to Su-30 and Su-35 for MiG, that will be produced and optimized while work is invested on a substitute. As it happens with every operational plane in this world I guess.

29 was a decent fighter but when was USSR made. I really dont think this magical Su-33 service life extension  2 times is by coincidence.

Before 2015 so when actually 29k were transferred to navy. Then magically new /su-33 modernization right after Syrian experience?

There are two issues at play here, I don't really think we need too much crime thinking to come to a reasonable explanation:

> On the one hand, MoD has an all-encompassing metric which monitors the level of modernization of the armed forces. Apart from the obvious political oversight that such KPIs attract (and that is the kind of things managers care about the most in the end), it is completely logical that you want to have all your equipment up to date at least to a reasonable extent, VVS is doing this all the time with their planes too. If the Su-33s have still hours on their airframes what would you do, neglect them and let them rot so they are useless or put them up to date and to good use? Excess of fighters is not a RuN problem you know
> The explanation of medo is that those planes will probably go to Arctic squadrons of the navy instead of forming the main air wing of the Kuznetsov, due to optimal corrosion protection, reinforced structure, avionics for navigation over sea etc. We will see whether he is right or not, you only need to wait.

In the meantime new deck fighter programme was announced...  

More or less the same as with Su-30 and Su-35, they are last development of the T-10 platform previously to being substituted. It does not mean they are a fiasco, only that their technical reserve has been depleted and for the future a new platform needs to be developed. I really don't see the big deal here, just take a look at the article I reposted about the technological innovations included in Su-57 to see that from a certain point onwards, only a new platform is going to be capable to embody effectively all the innovations you have been developing over time.

Yeah, because the Russian Navy ..don't really share a lot of equipment with the VDV... so why would they bother now?

The VMF has Coastal Troops, marines, supply, SAR/SF units who would love to use the tilt-rotors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Troops_of_the_Russian_Navy

If the V-22 was not so good, it wouldn't have 4 variants for their Army, AF, Navy, & the MC: EV-22
Proposed airborne early warning and control variant. The Royal Navy studied this AEW variant as a replacement for its current fleet of carrier-based Sea King ASaC.7 helicopters.
HV-22
The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. It chose the MH-60S for this role in 2001. [that may change with V-280,etc.]
SV-22
Proposed anti-submarine warfare variant. The U.S. Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Variants

They'll be better in the Arctic & FE with frequent bad weather & great distances to cover. They may even develop amphibian variants, just like with the Mi-14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-14

That would give the fleet a radar horizon of roughly 500 km. Better than that of the ships themselves, but not enough to prevent enemy aviation from approaching low altitude and attacking with ASCMs from the fringes of the AWACS detection radius

Ships already have radar and other equipment to defend themselves... the purpose of AWACS is to alert the ships they are under attack a few minutes before their own sensors would detect that attack... if they were on... your ships are going to be harder to detect and target because they don't need to be operating their search radar 24/7...

AWACS detects threats early but can also direct the defence against those threats so assets are used properly and efficiently and not wasted.

AWACS wont prevent attacks, they just make them more manageable.

A purely defensive stance under such circumstances is a recipe for defeat IMHO.

How is the enemy supposed to find the ships the AWACS aircraft is operating with... they wont be radars on broadcasting their position to the world... at most there will be an airborne radar and possibly some aircraft radar detectable by enemy forces...

Your ships of course!

How does your enemy know where they are?

The only thing preventing that from happening is your military being capable of showing enough deterring potential. Tensions are rising and at a given time this can happen, as US elites see themselves progressively trapped and their authority being put into question. How do you think wars start?

Of course wars happen, but you seemed so sure the US would be happy to sink a few Russian vessels and the fact that they would or could sink them was not up for question... I would suggest most Russian ships would be able to defend themselves from direct attack by US forces and indeed could reply in kind, but while I am confident that a Russian ship sent to Venezuela could probably stop a Harpoon attack, I am not so sure every US ship could stop an Onyx or even a supersonic Club.

The scenario I am referring too is one in which the USN ships are not in range of Russian sea-launched ASMs (500-600 km currently, acc. to open sources). USN has a naval aviation after all.

So the USN launches a stand off attack on a Russian ship... will the check the area around them to ensure no Russian subs are nearby...equally retaliation could be an immediate launch of a 2,500km range Calibre cruise missile to hit a known US base in a nearby country like Columbia, or an Onyx attack launched from a submarine operating much closer to US surface vessels...

You are suggesting the US commit an act of war... really?

Harpoons are not terrifying weapons I agree, but they have MANY and they can easily overwhelm you if you allow them to launch.

But that is the problem... with Harpoon you either fire one token missile and expect it to get shot down and hope they don't retaliate with one of the weapons in their arsenal that you can't shoot down, or you send lots, which is basically saying sink all of out ships that you can or eventually we are going to overwhelm your ships and sink them...

Sounds pretty stupid to me...

And of course there are other weapons now and in short term development, plus obviously US will try to close the gap they have in this regard, once RuN starts showing up on the high seas. For instance these Sparrow ALBMs could be adapted relatively fast to anti-ship role and they are pretty fast and long ranged. Onyx may not be in range at all, air launched missiles are needed to be on the safe side, even when Zircon appears this range issue will not change fundamentally.

Gaps will be shifting all over the show.... in 10 years time they might have a long range anti ship missile, but in 10 years time they will have S-500 operational at sea... if it can intercept satellites in orbit it should be able to bring down aircraft at very significant ranges too...

Zircon is a mach 9 missile with a range of over 1,000km... an air launched model carried by the Su-33... surface launched Zircon already has double the performance of surface launched Iskander so an air launched model of Zircon should be much more potent...

I don't know. What I mean is that US has an obvious numbers advantage in such a deployment, that you need to be able to compensate by keeping them at the required distance. Or at least that is how I amateurishly analyse it

So put a dozen Su-30SMs in crates with test model Zircon missiles and take them with your surface group... then unpack them and set them up on a land base with an A-100 for testing...

Then they don't need Yak-44-like planes on their CVNs; for long range detection, UAVs can be used, controlled from ships &/ helos/tilt-rotors.

The advantage of AWACS is not its range of detection, it is its radar horizon... altitude means it can see sea skimming missiles 4-500km away, which is something ship radar just wont see reliably.

They can always send a Tu-22M, Su-34 or a helo from shore to drop bombs there.

EMALS is all weather day and night capable and can double to launch heavier UAVS than could otherwise operate from such a ship... when it is done it could land next to the ship on the ice or water and be picked up by crane...

They may fail in it & dust off the Yak-41 design.

They may fail, or they may succeed, but the question is... is the reduced performance worth the capability to take off or land vertically... and most of the time the answer has been no.

With EMALS, it may take as many years to prefect as the new/old Russian STOVL.

We are only talking about 100 airframes or perhaps slightly more for the Russian Navy if it is STOVL. If it is STOL then you could probably add another 500 for the air force for a small light land based fighter... and there would probably be other customers too... hell even Turkey might want in on the deal... they could make some of the components...

Often range & speed is more important. More of them can be used to move more cargo.

Range and speed are only important if you don't have enough.

A short helo ride to a proper air strip and then a transfer to a much bigger much faster fixed wing aircraft makes rather more sense to me than developing a new in between type.

The rest of inland Siberia & the FE is accessible year round only by air.

The places they need supplies, they can build airstrips and base hubs... it actually is not that hard.

Anywhere you could land a V-22, you could get an Mi-38 or bigger helo... loads can also be paradropped or shipped... or driven cross country... heard of an MTLBu? Fantastic vehicle for tundra and ice and snow.

It can't land like a helo & in areas with rugged terrain & on icy rivers/lakes that may not be smooth enough, with no way to fix it, it will crash land, possibly killing every1.

Read my lips... it already operates there... they already use it for that sort of thing... they also already use helos and other light aircraft types too.

The Americans said the same thing about their V-22s. A mule can do what no horse & donkey can. The same with a Dromedary & Bactrian camel hybrid. Tough shit!

I disagree, the existing combination of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters is fine. If you need a long range life saving flight, then fly by helicopter to the nearest decent airfield and fly in a jet... much much faster than any tiltrotor... much better range.

U need 3 for that.

First of all not really... just schedule the work so it does not overlap and one is always available... with icebreakers having to transfer a CVN from the northern fleet to the pacific or back the other way will only take 2-3 weeks, which is nothing when gearing up for a serious operation.

The Adm K. can be treated as 0 since by the time new CVNs r built, it'll be old & may break down at any time, even after the refit with new & unproven propulsion.

It can also be treated with fairy dust and used at childrens birthday parties, but it is a weapon of war and a tool and anything can break down... WTF is this shit?

New propulsion set up wont be guesses or attempts... they are not idiots you know...

I doubt they'll deploy it to hot spots as often as to the usual training & "show the flag" areas, just like the Liaoning (CV-16).

Sit it off the fucking coast of the US of A during elections so the hackers can play with the planes between destroying the American electoral system...   

I really dont think this magical Su-33 service life extension 2 times is by coincidence.

But the Su-27K is actually older than the MiG-29K... and the Su-27K is just an Su-27 old bullshit model with a tail hook and folding bits... they really did fuck all to the design to adapt it.

In comparison the MiG-29K was based on the brand new MiG-29M that had a wielded shell so instead of loose fitting outer sheet metal parts with wielded internal fuel tanks, the MiG-29K had wielded sheet metal structure that you could store fuel in the structural sections without needing the extra weight or complication of a fuel tank... it was lighter and stronger and greatly increased the potential internal volume for fuel.

Equally: Look at history. It started over 30 years go when Sovict Union started collapsing. This means subcontractors network, production process management were "somehow" kept. This means lower or very low quality components, frauds, deadlines not kept, India or Russian navy.

It applies just as easily to Sukhoi...

29 was a decent fighter but when was USSR made. I really dont think this magical Su-33 service life extension 2 times is by coincidence.

The Su-33 is the only unupgraded Su-27 in operation anywhere... even the Ukraine upgraded theirs... they are giving it an upgrade because it fucking needs one.

Comparing the original MiG-29 with the original Su-27, the flanker is bigger and heavier and has longer range and a bigger better radar and IRST and can carry more missiles but importantly better missiles. The original MiG-29 could only carry the SARH version of the shorter ranged R-27R, plus the excellent R-73 and adequate R-60M. The Flanker could carry all those missiles plus the R-27T and R-27ET longer range model and the R-27ER long range SARH missile.
They could both also carry dumb bombs of 250 and 500kg weights as well as unguided rockets in pods.

The Su-33 added the Kh-31 anti ship missile but that is it.

In comparison the MiG-29K was fully multirole with not just the full range of air to ground and air to air weapons including the R-77 and all the long range R-27 models too.

It also got a better radar... what it didn't get was into production.

The new MiG-29KR is based on the new MiG-29M2/35 design and is rather better still and again fully multirole... the only things the Flanker has that is better is more weapon pylons but only dumb weak weapon options to put on them and longer flight range. I would doubt any superiority in radar or IRST sets at all.

But GD is in love so lets hear him say it is all obsolete and some jumped up F-35B is going to replace it all... a secret deal to end all deals by trump and putin...

Then magically new /su-33 modernization right after Syrian experience?

They are hardly going to set in stone upgrades before operational experience....   

Although there were some rumors but "light" MiG there is no official data neither link to VSTOL fighter.

There was talk of cooperation and investment from UAE and V was mentioned as a possibility...

can you then explain why light fighters still exist? Not for every role you need 6 hours in the air nor tons of payload.

Secondary back up and support roles... you know... big heavy fast powerful interceptor like MiG-31... little tiny fighter to shoot down UAVS around Russian airfields Yak-130 based aircraft with gunpods and manpads... big heavy fast powerful interceptor like Su-57K to defend Russian ships and subs, and tiny little vertical take off fighter with radar and AAMs to defend landing forces... Ka-52K with R-77 and R-73.

BTW Your only argument for large CVN so far was ..... to transport 30 fighters to Venezuela to land base. Wow.

Well if they develop a VSTOL 5th gen fighter they will need to carry at least 90 when they leave the Russian port because by the time they get to the southern hemisphere they will have lost a dozen in normal operational accidents and crashes...

Then in 2012 Russians decided to extend Su-33 life (+modernization) till 2025. Right after 29k enter ranks... In 2016 there was Syrian campaign. Performance analysis and... Now I can hear again new modernization and extension? Wow
Surely to keep 29k in unused state . They r just too good to be used

Interesting story, but might it just be possible the SU-33s are getting upgrades because they were so inadequate in the Syrian campaign and needed an upgrade, while the still new MiG-29KR was fine and just continues as is? They were never anything like any upgraded version of any model Flanker... even the Su-27SM is vastly superior to the Su-33, because the Su-33 is a bog standard mid 1980s Su-27 with very few upgrades or changes except folding bits and a tail hook and canards.

The Su-25 got more changes than the Su-33 did...

because you didnt check its history, why crap missile suddenly started working? only they didn't rename Bulava to Bulava -35

If it was a crap missile it would be American. It is clearly a fine missile that had a few faults... which is perfectly normal in the real world.

wow, so having developed capable platform doesn't bother Navy. of course in budget there is too much money

Actually in the Russian Navy one of the biggest problems is that there isn't too much money at all and most money goes on subs, which is perfectly sensible and reasonable I think you would agree.

MiG-29k - 3 pilots killed
Yak-141 - none

MiG-29KR - ZERO pilots killed quite a few dozen made

Yak-41 -  didn't fly long enough, has excellent auto ejection system that ensures pilot survival, but tends to be rough on aircraft numbers that tend to be destroyed more often than other aircraft - none in serial production or service anywhere so figure unlikely to ever change.

If the V-22 was not so good, it wouldn't have 4 variants for their Army, AF, Navy, & the MC: EV-22

Lots of speculation about things that don't exist yet, but then you still have hopes the VDV will buy AN-70s...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:hmm you seem to be mixing design with crappy quality of parts, service  && assembly. Components, avionics without keeping parameters.   Can you explain me problems with Russian Navy serviceability? Structural problems with landing gear in  Indian  Navy ? or Algerian "success" ?

Aaaa if this in on website then OK. Does it say anything about quality of parts and assembly

If you have info on RuN problems or investigation results on landing gear issues of Indian navy I am all ears, really. It may be that their production was not up to the task for some time but that has not much to do with the plane capabilities as per design does it? Algerian planes were SMTs apparently built with junkyard parts, not K/M/35 versions. Regardless Algeria seems keen on buying the 29M:

http://alert5.com/2018/08/29/algeria-in-talks-for-14-mig-29m-m2/

Don't understand the bolded part.

Let's just wait and see, but if the 29K continue flying in the Kuznetsov you will owe us a truckload beers

GarryB wrote:AWACS wont prevent attacks, they just make them more manageable.

Yes, of course I agree it is better to have AWACS than being blind beyond ships radar horizon. But that is not enough IMHO.

How is the enemy supposed to find the ships the AWACS aircraft is operating with... they wont be radars on broadcasting their position to the world... at most there will be an airborne radar and possibly some aircraft radar detectable by enemy

forces...
I am VERY sceptical a fleet can operate for long periods of time in complete radio silence. Once deployed to a theatre, everybody knows roughly where they are. They are the base of operations, cannot stay silent or use no sonar, no radar, no link to other forces in theatre and HQ in Russia. Don't have the operational details about such deployments I admit but this is not realistic to me. Besides, if you have an AWACS flying and the doctrine is for it to stay close to the fleet the enemy won't have to look very far away to find the ships right?

I see this as confronting an enemy on the top of a hill with them throwing rocks and arrows at you and you just running for your life. It is not setting yourself in the path of victory if you can just try to defend blows, more even considering you cannot resupply your ships.

How does your enemy know where they are?

See above. Plus:
- OTH
- Satellites

Summary: a fleet cannot hide. Really they can't.

Of course wars happen, but you seemed so sure the US would be happy to sink a few Russian vessels and the fact that they would or could sink them was not up for question... I would suggest most Russian ships would be able to defend themselves from direct attack by US forces and indeed could reply in kind, but while I am confident that a Russian ship sent to Venezuela could probably stop a Harpoon attack, I am not so sure every US ship could stop an Onyx or even a supersonic Club.

No discussion about Russian ASM capabilities being far and beyond those of USN. It is quite clear that this is not a pressing need for USN, but why? Because they rely on their naval aviation and overall deterrence capability. One to one, maybe a Russian corvette could take on a USN DDG and get it sunk or damaged while getting sunk itself too. That is a great achievement. But if he US fleet uses planes it can stay out of range of your sea-launched ASMs and on the offensive and you cannot contain that for long.

So the USN launches a stand off attack on a Russian ship... will the check the area around them to ensure no Russian subs are nearby...

Subs are of course one of the factors, I considered them in my original response. But there USN has also superiority of numbers so it is not the only thing you should rely on, they could get shadowed and destroyed too.

equally retaliation could be an immediate launch of a 2,500km range Calibre cruise missile to hit a known US base in a nearby country like Columbia,

You can strike their bases in Persian Gulf too, or Washington... escalation is a delicate issue. Otherwise Russia would not have conventional forces at all.

You are suggesting the US commit an act of war... really?

Suggesting?? Not!!  
But I know the time will come when the paths of US and Russia will collide and no-one will be in conditions to make way. This is the course we are following, it ends with one of them being defeated. IF we are lucky this will happen without a major war but US is not making anything t avoid that, on the contrary searching for all possible weak spots where they can lay some hits on Russia.

Regarding the way that such an attack would be justified, it would be ALWAYS preceded by a false flag attack. Given how high the tension is already now, US public would believe absolutely any crap that imply a "further" act of aggression against US and the "international community". You can do literally anything, blame the Russians and start the military provocation / harassment that ends up in a direct attack. We have seen similar things already and this has just started. Besides, who is going to report what happens in the open seas? Nobody will know for sure how the events developed.

But that is the problem... with Harpoon you either fire one token missile and expect it to get shot down and hope they don't retaliate with one of the weapons in their arsenal that you can't shoot down, or you send lots, which is basically saying sink all of out ships that you can or eventually we are going to overwhelm your ships and sink them...

Sounds pretty stupid to me...

If the goal is to get Russia out of the way it may be worth it, for them. It would be a violent but brief exchange that could be largely misreported in the West as they always do in these cases. Russian retaliation out of theatre would be reported as a declaration of war.

Gaps will be shifting all over the show.... in 10 years time they might have a long range anti ship missile, but in 10 years time they will have S-500 operational at sea... if it can intercept satellites in orbit it should be able to bring down aircraft at very significant ranges too...

True. But no missile can avoid being overwhelmed by numbers, it is that simple. And lack of numbers is not a USN problem

Zircon is a mach 9 missile with a range of over 1,000km... an air launched model carried by the Su-33... surface launched Zircon already has double the performance of surface launched Iskander so an air launched model of Zircon should be much more potent...

Exactly what I mean. You need to put their vessels under threat or you are just a target.

So put a dozen Su-30SMs in crates with test model Zircon missiles and take them with your surface group... then unpack them and set them up on a land base with an A-100 for testing...

While K is in retrofit and no real option exists, Russia should rely on long range aviation or land based fighters in theatre + IFR, true.

The advantage of AWACS is not its range of detection, it is its radar horizon... altitude means it can see sea skimming missiles 4-500km away, which is something ship radar just wont see reliably.

If UAVs r not enough, they could deploy A-50/100s & MiG-31s that have look down/shoot down capability to friendly countries they'll be defending with their VMF. If there r no such countries, then there's no point sending a CBG there. OTH, the US/UK can use their conventional armed SLBMs or a low yield nuke to EMP it. Thus, that CBG must be able to defend against BMs & EMP bursts as well.

EMALS is all weather day and night capable and can double to launch heavier UAVS..

For ice reconn they won't need heavy fixed wing UAVs. Once those supericebreakers appear, those won't need any ice reconn at all except perhaps in emergencies with other ships that need rescuing.

We are only talking about 100 airframes or perhaps slightly more for the Russian Navy if it is STOVL.

Fine, UDKs r covered then. CVNs/TAKR hybrids can also use them but their main fighters may/would be C/STOLs that also don't need EMALS; AWACS/COD/large UAVs can be all tilt-rotors.
“Creation of the VTOL system, if now in progress and initiated in 2017, may lead to a flight of the first experimental prototype in 2022-2023 and the launch of the machine in series production in the late 2020s,” Izvestia says.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-big-naval-move-new-aircraft-carriers-and-dangerous-new-fighter-jets-47597

A short helo ride to a proper air strip and then a transfer to a much bigger much faster fixed wing aircraft makes rather more sense to me than developing a new in between type.
..loads can also be paradropped or shipped... or driven cross country...
it already operates there... they already use it for that sort of thing... they also already use helos and other light aircraft types too.

A helo may not have enough range, & bad weather can stay for weeks there, grounding all other rotary & fix wing aircraft. Sudden wether changes r also common in some areas. Tilt-rotors can avoid them by flying around them, higher & faster.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37738915
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-helicopter-crash-kills-19-people-in-siberia-1.2840028
https://www.wired.com/story/leonardo-aw609-tilt-rotor/

Airdrops have its own drawbacks & risks; reaching them by ground takes longer & not always possible across an impassable forested/rocky terrain. An-2 isn't all weather & can't land in a bog, thick vegetation, or on uneven rocky/icy surface w/o crashing.
I'm not for replacing every passenger/utility/medevac plane & helo with a tilt-rotor, but if the VDV & others r going to have them anyway, civilian versions won't hurt at all & will improve air transportation across Russia by an order of magnitude.

The Americans said the same thing about their V-22s.
..If you need a long range life saving flight, then fly by helicopter to the nearest decent airfield and fly in a jet..

It's about their self-deployabilty I'm talking. It frees other assets & saves $/time. No need to use ships, rail & large cargo planes to deliver them as they have the range & don't need multiple refueling stops. For light repairs/conversions, they can fly to other maintenance facilities & back. Forest firefighting is a big issue there every summer & they can do it as well or better than helos.
"Decent" airfields r few & far between; it's not safe to land a jet there.
I had a round trip on a prop driven An-24 in Mongolia, just S. of Siberia, & we made stops on the same dirt strip. A big firefighters' truck with a water cannon was right there, ready to deal with crash landing.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/MIAT-Mongolian-Airlines/Antonov-An-24RV/532217
http://www.comtourist.com/images/large/kazakhstan-09/karkaralinsk-zil-130-firetruck-02.jpg
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/07/04/opinion/map/map-articleLarge.png

Lots of speculation about things that don't exist yet,..

Only 2 of those listed variants of the V-22 don't exist.
https://www.adn.com/economy/article/reputation-remake-tilt-rotor-osprey-wins-fans-afghanistan/2013/05/09/
https://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/548938/3rd-maw-ospreys-take-flight-for-alaska/

..you still have hopes the VDV will buy AN-70s...

What comes around, goes around. That plane can be revived in Russia & substitute/augment Il-276 & Il-112 if they r not successful or take too long to perfect. 2 & 4 engine variants r possible with 30-50T payloads, discussed earlier. Even now, Russia could order civ. versions & then modify them for mil. uses.

..just schedule the work so it does not overlap and one is always available... with icebreakers having to transfer a CVN from the northern fleet to the pacific or back the other way will only take 2-3 weeks, which is nothing when gearing up for a serious operation.

If it can go wrong, it will, like with that drydock sinking & flight deck damage. Schedules r not kept most of the time there & for many reasons. Using the NSR will disrupt icebreakers' regular convoys & won't help much, as their deployment areas r going to be in the tropics & down under, not in the N. Atlantic/Pacific.
The best solution is to forward deploy 1-2 them in Cuba/Nicaragua/Venezuela/Syria/Indonesia/Vietnam/Philippines/Sudan, if they r still Russia friendly by then, or some other countries. 1 CBG there is worth 3-5 of them homeported in Russia.
The USN CVN in Japan is called "the 911 carrier" as that is the emergency phone # in the US, to respond fast &/ plug any carrier gaps; it happened many times.
They are 17 steaming days closer to locations in Asia than their counterparts based in the continental United States. It would take three to five times the number of rotationally-based ships in the U.S. to equal the same presence and crisis response capability as these 18 forward deployed ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet#Operations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet#Forward-deployed_Seventh_Fleet_ships

Note both V-22s & CH-53s on deck, besides the F-35s there later: https://news.usni.org/2019/01/17/uss-america-to-japan

Algerian planes were SMTs apparently built with junkyard parts, not K/M/35 versions. Regardless Algeria seems keen on buying the 29M:

Algeria dropped the SMTs because Sukhoi offered Su-30s for the same price... there was nothing at all wrong with the SMTs... the Russian AF introduced those very same aircraft into service... it was just an excuse to get out of the contract.

Yes, of course I agree it is better to have AWACS than being blind beyond ships radar horizon. But that is not enough IMHO.

The only two things a Russian CVN would provide is AWACS and CAP with fighter aircraft. We are probably talking... all up 20 billion for two carriers and two carrier groups, developing aircraft, both fighter and AWACS... make it 30-40 billion if you want lots of little carriers plus VSTOL fighters and whatever sort of AWACS types to fit.

In comparison an airship is quick and easy and cheap and any large container ship could be converted into an arsenal ship on the cheap...

I am VERY sceptical a fleet can operate for long periods of time in complete radio silence.

Modern directional burst transmissions at UAV relay platforms or via satellites.... most information transfers would be digital datalinks anyway.

[qutoe] Once deployed to a theatre, everybody knows roughly where they are. They are the base of operations, cannot stay silent or use no sonar, no radar, no link to other forces in theatre and HQ in Russia. Don't have the operational details about such deployments I admit but this is not realistic to me. Besides, if you have an AWACS flying and the doctrine is for it to stay close to the fleet the enemy won't have to look very far away to find the ships right?[/quote]

But it was the core of the western argument all through the 60,70,80,90,00, and up to today... carrier groups are stealthy and you really don't know where they are... anything you send to find them will be shot down immediately... blah blah blah... 

Summary: a fleet cannot hide. Really they can't.

And how many Satellites and OTH radar did the argentinians have to spot the UK forces in 1982?

No discussion about Russian ASM capabilities being far and beyond those of USN. It is quite clear that this is not a pressing need for USN, but why? Because they rely on their naval aviation and overall deterrence capability. One to one, maybe a Russian corvette could take on a USN DDG and get it sunk or damaged while getting sunk itself too. That is a great achievement. But if he US fleet uses planes it can stay out of range of your sea-launched ASMs and on the offensive and you cannot contain that for long.

The USN expects to fight an enemy at arms length... with their aircraft wiping out the enemies air power first and then their naval and land power next... they are not looking for an equal fight against a peer enemy.

Subs are of course one of the factors, I considered them in my original response. But there USN has also superiority of numbers so it is not the only thing you should rely on, they could get shadowed and destroyed too.

So why did they get their asses handed to them in shitty little conflicts against people who struggle to live day to day... they don't have missiles as good as Russia but they have numbers so they are fine?

Last time I looked they might have numbers but are not really prepared to lose those numbers in combat... they are used to being all powerful and in control... when VIEDs go boom they are not so powerful.

You say the russian subs will get shadowed and destroyed... you think a Russian sub will not destroy anti sub surface ships belonging to the US?

When they lose their first few anti sub destroyers will they send more or run away and mine the area...

IF we are lucky this will happen without a major war but US is not making anything t avoid that, on the contrary searching for all possible weak spots where they can lay some hits on Russia.

They have a lot of blind spots and a lot more soft under belly than Russia has ever had.

Regarding the way that such an attack would be justified, it would be ALWAYS preceded by a false flag attack. Given how high the tension is already now, US public would believe absolutely any crap that imply a "further" act of aggression against US and the "international community". You can do literally anything, blame the Russians and start the military provocation / harassment that ends up in a direct attack. We have seen similar things already and this has just started. Besides, who is going to report what happens in the open seas? Nobody will know for sure how the events developed.

That doesn't matter though... they can say Russia invaded Georgia... what the gullible western public believe is irrelevant... the facts are that Georgia attacked south ossetia and then Russia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia pushed the georgian forces back into georgian territory... what the international community thought or did not think doesn't matter much in that regard.

If the US wants to start a shooting war with Russia, he said she said wont matter a damn, the Russian response wont be based on what the US said happened or what the international community think happened, it will be based on Russias understanding of what happened from its own forces and people... and the response will be based on that.

ie the US fires 10 anti ship missiles at a Russian ship, which it repels... another attack appears imminent so the Russian ship captain requests assistance and permission to open fire on the platforms believed to have initiated the initial attack and likely to attack again... international permission will not be sought.

If the goal is to get Russia out of the way it may be worth it, for them. It would be a violent but brief exchange that could be largely misreported in the West as they always do in these cases. Russian retaliation out of theatre would be reported as a declaration of war.

I don't think a Russian ship would respond well to being attacked, let alone repeatedly attacked in an attempt to sink her.

Russians would just report they were attacked and defended themselves... wasn't their fault they shot down all four tomahawk missiles launched at them  but the ship the missiles came from didn't withstand the one Onyx missile they launched in response and was sunk.

True. But no missile can avoid being overwhelmed by numbers, it is that simple. And lack of numbers is not a USN problem

If you have a .22LR calibre rifle then lots of bullets will be needed for each kill... using it in an army of 30-40 men against an enemy with 4-5 soldiers but each armed with an SVD... you might have problems ordering those 30-40 men to approach those 4-5 enemy soldiers armed with SVD rifles... well no problems giving the orders... problems getting the orders carried out.

Exactly what I mean. You need to put their vessels under threat or you are just a target.

Yasen can carry Zircon, and they wont know where they are until they fire, so that already puts the US ships under threat...

Oscars also have an anti carrier role and provide a similar threat do they not?

If UAVs r not enough, they could deploy A-50/100s & MiG-31s that have look down/shoot down capability to friendly countries they'll be defending with their VMF.

The priority of MiGs and A-50/100s will be protecting Russian airspace first.

If there r no such countries, then there's no point sending a CBG there. OTH, the US/UK can use their conventional armed SLBMs or a low yield nuke to EMP it. Thus, that CBG must be able to defend against BMs & EMP bursts as well.

Sorry... what?

AWACS are vulnerable because the US or UK could use SLBMs wiht nuke warheads to disable them using a high altitude nuclear explosion to generate an EMP effect to disable it for a few hours... are you listening to yourself?

If the only way an AWACS platform can be brought down is with SLBMs then I think they are totally safe because the use of an SLBM with a nuclear warhead will be the first shot in WWIII... a situation where the survival of AWACS platforms is irrelevant.

For ice reconn they won't need heavy fixed wing UAVs. Once those supericebreakers appear, those won't need any ice reconn at all except perhaps in emergencies with other ships that need rescuing.

A heavy UAV could carry ice penetrating radar or other sensors that could determine the actual thickness of large areas of ice in real time in front of that ship and the ships it is escorting.

“Creation of the VTOL system, if now in progress and initiated in 2017, may lead to a flight of the first experimental prototype in 2022-2023 and the launch of the machine in series production in the late 2020s,” Izvestia says.

If it goes well and there are no fundamental problems. It could just as easily fail and lead to a more conventional STOL type being chosen and brought into service.

A helo may not have enough range, & bad weather can stay for weeks there, grounding all other rotary & fix wing aircraft. Sudden wether changes r also common in some areas. Tilt-rotors can avoid them by flying around them, higher & faster.

So weather a helo or fixed wing aircraft can't operate in and these non existent tiltrotor super planes can operate fine... how convenient for someone advocating tiltrotor designs... does it clear up oil slicks with its engine exhaust and fart unicorns too?

Airdrops have its own drawbacks & risks; reaching them by ground takes longer & not always possible across an impassable forested/rocky terrain. An-2 isn't all weather & can't land in a bog, thick vegetation, or on uneven rocky/icy surface w/o crashing.

Yeah, of course... airdrops can only be performed over active volcanoes and vertical cliff faces... the An-2 has been doing the job up until today and even if these magical uber tiltrotors are in service tomorrow morning most operators will continue to use An-2s for the next 50 years because they are cheap and simple and easy to maintain and operate.

I'm not for replacing every passenger/utility/medevac plane & helo with a tilt-rotor, but if the VDV & others r going to have them anyway, civilian versions won't hurt at all & will improve air transportation across Russia by an order of magnitude.

Of course, because the civilian operators in the far east and siberia always use BMD4 IFVS to get around and they normally rely on the VDV castoffs for their main means of getting around.

For most civilian operators a tiltrotor will be too much of a pain in the ass... just like those flying cars that everyone was supposed to be flying around in these days... but guess what... the reality is that most people can be bothered getting a licence to drive a car but a licence to fly a light aircraft is something else... it is time consuming... rather expensive... and requires regular renewal and other costs that simply make it a stupid idea in the first place.

For a Tiltrotor aircraft the pilot would not get away with a conventional fixed wing pilots licence, they will likely need a fixed wing and a rotary wing licence which will be expensive and time consuming.

The people who live in the arctic are not nomads... they stay in one place most of the time so setting up a proper airfield makes as much sense as living near a river so you have fresh water and a local supply of food... finding a big open flat space is NOT HARD.

Landing on a peat bog is difficult, but not as difficult as living in a peat bog, so I suspect it wont be a problem because they wont live there.

It's about their self-deployabilty I'm talking. It frees other assets & saves $/time.

What? They move around on Skidoos and diesel powered vehicles like the MTLB, or Mi-8 helicopters, or An-2s... which are all highly mobile and all relatively cheap and meet their needs... they are not 400km/h plus vehicles... so the fuck what... I live in a temperate climate and have access to motor vehicles... what is it about the Russian far east and siberia that you think they need to get to places so urgently?

What else do they have to do out there that time is so important?

And why do you think getting from one bleak snow swept wasteland to another craggy face of a mountain cliff in 40 minutes instead of 2 hours is so damn important?

No need to use ships, rail & large cargo planes to deliver them as they have the range & don't need multiple refueling stops.

The An-2 and Mi-8 can fly 1,000km or more... what is this multiple refuelling stops shit?

From a supply hub they will fly out to various places within range. Anything that is not in range wont be supplied, or could be supplied by air drop using a bigger aircraft.

For light repairs/conversions, they can fly to other maintenance facilities & back.

For any repairs they should not be flying anywhere...

Forest firefighting is a big issue there every summer & they can do it as well or better than helos.

Be-200 does it better than any non existent aircraft never built.

Decent airfields r few & far between; it's not safe to land a jet there.

New decent airfields are appearing all over the place in the north and far east... so are rail lines...

These Tiltrotor aircraft are going to be obsolete before they even get some.

I had a round trip on a prop driven An-24 in Mongolia, just S. of Siberia, & we made stops on the same dirt strip.

Of course, I would judge the quality of Russian military airfields recently built in the far north and the far east based purely on a dirt runway in Mongolia...

A big firefighters' truck with a water cannon was right there, ready to deal with crash landing.

Brilliant... they are there in case there is an accident to try to help save your life potentially and you look down your nose at them and suggest it is proof it is unsafe... You should tell them that... I am sure they could save a bit of money not bothering to watch your ass.

Only 2 of those listed variants of the V-22 don't exist.

None of the Russian variants exist...

What comes around, goes around. That plane can be revived in Russia & substitute/augment Il-276 & Il-112 if they r not successful or take too long to perfect. 2 & 4 engine variants r possible with 30-50T payloads, discussed earlier. Even now, Russia could order civ. versions & then modify them for mil. uses.

Delusional... the Ukraine wont sell Russia engine parts for helos and aircraft they have paid for... I really don't think the Russians are stupid enough to order An-70s no matter what the price, and it sure as hell will never enter the Russian military.

Using the NSR will disrupt icebreakers' regular convoys & won't help much, as their deployment areas r going to be in the tropics & down under, not in the N. Atlantic/Pacific.

The military have their own ice breakers and there is plenty of room for two convoys to pass each other going in opposite directions... and it would save a rather long detour going that way than having to take the south pole route or the route through the suez or panama canals.

If it can go wrong, it will, like with that drydock sinking & flight deck damage. Schedules r not kept most of the time there & for many reasons.

Anything can happen but you have to make do with what you have got or can reasonably afford.

After a decade of operations they might have built up their international trade to afford another carrier or two, but it needs to be a financially supported plan... not just a shot in the dark... we can build four carriers because we should boost our economy with the extra trade they guarantee to pay for them over time.

The best solution is to forward deploy 1-2 them in Cuba/Nicaragua/Venezuela/Syria/Indonesia/Vietnam/Philippines/Sudan, if they r still Russia friendly by then, or some other countries. 1 CBG there is worth 3-5 of them homeported in Russia.

They could do that with the Kuznetsov, it could wave the flag in the pacific and piss off australia and new zealand and the us of course...

I wonder what formula did you use to get 100 VSTOL and 500 STOL?

2 new CVNs plus land based spares = about 100, or CATOBAR CVNs, the same number, but the new light 5th gen fighter could be used by the Airforce too... they could use folding wing fighters in mobile base set ups that operate from stretches of their new motorways... set up a cable arresting system with trucks and pullies and use the folding wings to park them in roadside hangars...

no, it is not. There were many more redesign changes then 29K.

The MiG-33 had structural design changes that completely changed the entire design from the original MiG-29, but you think the Su-33 getting structural strengthening and increased size control surfaces and canards and folding wings was modified more?

How cute.

Sukhoi clearly better manged its production.

When the music stopped Sukhoi had the bigger more attractive product at hand, to be honest they did a far worse job... as I said the Su-33 was the bare minimum to get an Su-27 to operate from a carrier. Most of the 90s and 00s they didn't even upgrade their aircraft at all... they didn't even try.

No wonder that they won PAK FA not MiG.

Don't you think it is odd that the S-37 they won with looks nothing like the Su-57 we see today?

Looks to me like more of a political and economic decision and the actual competition was all smoke and mirrors.

Still looking at the MiG entry and the "new" chinese stealth fighters it seems the designs didn't go to waste...

so suddenly "dinky" range and "dinky" payload  is not  your concern ? wow

Both aircraft provide adequate range with decent flight speed.

Yak-41 and F-35 have inadequate performance in both areas in vertical take off mode.

so 29k is at its best for support roles? expensive toy then.

In the context the support role is operating over Russian ships and protecting them from enemy threats... so hardly a toy.

OK so still no real scenario, arguments. Thank you, Sir for agreeing with my thesis.
Yes there is absolutely no realistic scenario where 60 fighters air-wing , in case of RN,  is better.


Besides "little Johnny wants mom to buy bigger toys"  of course.

Blah blah blah... if 24 aircraft will do then why not convert a cargo ship if it is such an unimportant role it will save you so much money that these VSTOL fighters might even become affordable... operational costs for crashed aircraft is zero so in the long term they are a real asset...

Nope. They were upgraded once already round 2010.  They were to be extended till 2025. Now I've herd (can anybody confirm for sure?) the new wave of service-life extension (till 2035?) . Then the question is - this is well  after 29K service life... new fighter will co me to replace them both. So 29k is effectively  phased of  already.

But wait if they are going to operate them till 2035 then WTF do they need these new STOVL fighters you want?

My point was RuN Aviation wont need to spend billions in new platform if working tilt-rotor exists.  AEW/AWACS for deck avition is planned. No platforms yet exist, no programs for its creation is also announced. Thus I'd expect some more radical moves.

They could slap together an airship based system with all manner of radar antenna arrays from ULF up to Ku and everything in between... and not need to build any carriers at all... in 2035 when they withdraw the Kuznetsov and her upgraded Su-33s, they can just operate airships to support their fleet operations around the world...

so precisely how many was made? since MiG/UAC says nothing about KR version.

India bought a couple of dozen and the Russians bought a few... WTF do you care, they are phasing them out remember?

BTW Borisov sent MiG нa хуй with first proposal of MiG-41 project. It was "old design warmed up" . Looks like even with new mgmt MiG designers r trying to live to traditions...

Wow what bastards... imagine suggesting improving a design that is solid and works that is less of a risk and can be made on existing tooling and equipment...

Nothing like the Americans who made the Ford class carrier a 100Kt nuclear powered carrier with the same planes as the Nimitz class 100Kt nuclear powered carrier... but they have upgraded the steam cats to an EMALS cat system that doesn't currently work... maybe they should have worked harder and made a completely new and unproven design to replace it.... like LCS and the Zumwalt class vessels...

that's why you have Avangards for... 30 min and boing no CVN. OR is Poseidon carrier is round... it could take bit longer tho.

And the advantage is that the same satellite that located the target can be used to show evidence it was responsible for the US attack that caused the Russian retaliation.

Not sure what scenarios you're talking about? you dont build expeditionary fleet to fight USN. Those "gunship fleets" re not to fight WW3. You dont need years of supply.

Short confrontation like in Syria++ then such expeditionary force is OK

Wow... we agree... Russian carrier groups are not for WWIII and not for taking on the US or NATO fleets... they wont back away from a fight, but that is not what they are for.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:that is precisely I was saying: marketing on website says tops. In real life poor quality parts, wrong parts frauds, assembly problems.

BTW Borisov sent MiG нa хуй   with first proposal of MiG-41 project. It was "old design warmed up" . Looks like even with new mgmt MiG designers r trying to  live to traditions...

If you meant that MiG has faced (and still faces) serous challenges I totally agree. But they are a national asset for Russia and will be brought back in the path of competence and efficiency, if only because Russia cannot accept it any other way. Strategic defence industries must operate properly, it does not matter how many times management needs to be shaken and what needs to be changed. There is no other way.

Don't think the MiG-41 issue needs to be mixed here, we know essentially nothing and besides MiG making a non-pretentious proposal to MoD instead of a megalomaniac program is a good thing to me. If it is not enough for MoD, MiG can certainly make it bigger and more expensive for them, no problem!

But back to the 29K, it is operational and apparently ok, that is what I know and what I think matters. If you have recent info contradicting that I am happy to read it.

that's why you have Avangards for... 30 min and boing no CVN. OR is Poseidon carrier is round... it could take bit longer tho.

Yeah, we already discussed it. It is a possibility, but I am inclined to think MoD would prefer an in-theatre, non-strategic solution for this...

Not sure what scenarios you're talking about? you dont build expeditionary fleet to fight USN.

You build them to defend your fleet from whatever eventuality threatens it during a deployment, I am sure you understand this. Once the fleet is deployed, it needs to be capable of ensuring its security. Otherwise the officials responsible would never allow such mission.

Those "gunship fleets" re not to fight WW3. You dont need years of supply.

What gunships? What years of supply? All I am saying is you cannot go to what US considers "their" hemisphere hoping that they don't attack you very hard. Have you seen them sparing anyone they consider weaker?? You need to put their conventional assets in serious risk from the very first moment to deter the escalation otherwise it would be tempting to teach you a lesson.

Short confrontation like in Syria++ then such expeditionary force is OK

Not all wars are like Syria. Not all moments in this long-term confrontation will be ruled by the same parameters. Endgame is approaching and US will get more violent each day, open your eyes to what they are doing and for what they are preparing. They will double down to the bitter end.

Air-lunched is not Zircon but GZUR.

Maybe, not discussing that. But we know so little, you have already talked 100 times more about GZUR than MoD has done. It does not really matter the name, only the capability represented by a long range, high performance ASM that can be air launched by the naval aviation in order to threat USN vessels independent of the land-based assets in theatre. You see what path USN is going, you need to be able to answer that and Russia is in a perfect position for achieving it.

GarryB wrote:Algeria dropped the SMTs because Sukhoi offered Su-30s for the same price... there was nothing at all wrong with the SMTs... the Russian AF introduced those very same aircraft into service... it was just an excuse to get out of the contract.

OK, I am not aware of such details. In any case they are not behaving as a disgruntled partner but rather wanting more MiGs.

In comparison an airship is quick and easy and cheap and any large container ship could be converted into an arsenal ship on the cheap

I like the idea of the airship you know but until we see something in that direction I understand MoD is going the traditional way.

Modern directional burst transmissions at UAV relay platforms or via satellites.... most information transfers would be digital datalinks anyway.

No side-lobe has zero power. There are assets to pick-up that from hundreds of km away...

But it was the core of the western argument all through the 60,70,80,90,00, and up to today... carrier groups are stealthy and you really don't know where they are... anything you send to find them will be shot down immediately... blah blah blah... 

Russia developed their naval surveillance satellites and put all that crap to rest. Hell, you can know the location of each CSG on the internet, are they going to teleport them in case of war?

And how many Satellites and OTH radar did the argentinians have to spot the UK forces in 1982?

Hell, I guess none, but Malvinas is not my strongest topic. But developing countries have at best patchy military capabilities so it does not make sense to compare to Russia. They have planes but they don't have the air control, they have a missile but they have no targeting or EW... they have an umbrella but they walk bare foot so to say. I doubt Russia is going to harass 3rd world countries, at least under the current leadership and geopolitical situation, but rather they need to avoid being harassed by USN which very happily will engage abroad to defend their rights to loot, with the help of other neighbouring countries where they can place early warning radars, airbases etc.

The USN expects to fight an enemy at arms length... with their aircraft wiping out the enemies air power first and then their naval and land power next... they are not looking for an equal fight against a peer enemy.

Yeah, exactly. That is why you need very capable naval fighters carrying long range, high performance AAM/ASM. There is a massive numbers disadvantage to compensate.

So why did they get their asses handed to them in shitty little conflicts against people who struggle to live day to day... they don't have missiles as good as Russia but they have numbers so they are fine?

They have never failed to lay waste to other countries... they just lack the commitment to endure the realities in the ground they have created and therefore end up leaving. But this would be no long term conflict, just a brief skirmish to push Russia aside.

Last time I looked they might have numbers but are not really prepared to lose those numbers in combat... they are used to being all powerful and in control... when VIEDs go boom they are not so powerful.

You say the russian subs will get shadowed and destroyed... you think a Russian sub will not destroy anti sub surface ships belonging to the US?

When they lose their first few anti sub destroyers will they send more or run away and mine the area...

I agree they have grown self indulgent but as I say they are not going to give up primacy. There is a very clear intention in the US military to rise their game for the big power competition. This is a political decision after all, so they could decide they are going to raise the stakes and take some hits, in the end it would be wonderful to rally the public opinion if a USN vessel is sunk by a Russian sub.

USN has more subs and they are very good. In the Caribbean for instance they enjoy total superiority, so Russian subs could fight bravely and still be defeated. I don't think it is robust enough as a strategy to entrust them all the weight of the deterrence.

They have a lot of blind spots and a lot more soft under belly than Russia has ever had.

True, but what use is that, if they are not aware or don't care about such weak spots and continue escalating towards nuclear war?

That doesn't matter though... they can say Russia invaded Georgia... what the gullible western public believe is irrelevant... the facts are that Georgia attacked south ossetia and then Russia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia pushed the georgian forces back into georgian territory... what the international community thought or did not think doesn't matter much in that regard.

If the US wants to start a shooting war with Russia, he said she said wont matter a damn, the Russian response wont be based on what the US said happened or what the international community think happened, it will be based on Russias understanding of what happened from its own forces and people... and the response will be based on that.

ie the US fires 10 anti ship missiles at a Russian ship, which it repels... another attack appears imminent so the Russian ship captain requests assistance and permission to open fire on the platforms believed to have initiated the initial attack and likely to attack again... international permission will not be sought.

Well, don't forget that USN vessels are not in range in my scenario. In such a situation, Russia may get some vessels sink or damaged and would be forced to abandon the theatre, since it is doubtful that they would unleash a world war because of some sailors, though that is a political decision in the end. US would recover some lost prestige and confirm Russia cannot defend their allies, and their explanation for the incident would be a "firm and resolute" response to the acts of aggression from the Russians. More sanctions would follow. To this day UK and US still talk about the Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and the international community and institutions buy their narrative. So politically these actions have little cost for the West and it is therefore reasonable to think they will stick to them.

If you have a .22LR calibre rifle then lots of bullets will be needed for each kill... using it in an army of 30-40 men against an enemy with 4-5 soldiers but each armed with an SVD... you might have problems ordering those 30-40 men to approach those 4-5 enemy soldiers armed with SVD rifles... well no problems giving the orders... problems getting the orders carried out.

The relative ranges of the missiles involved dictate who has the "SVD". There is no such range advantage to RuN vessels today against air launched ASMs.

Yasen can carry Zircon, and they wont know where they are until they fire, so that already puts the US ships under threat...

Oscars also have an anti carrier role and provide a similar threat do they not?

Yes, as said that is the best Russian option by now, but Zircon is still not operational and other missiles have notably smaller ranges / lesser speed. A deployment in theatre would mean USN would know some Russian SSNs are there for sure, they could be tracking them even before they deployed. USN has the resources do that, RuN not because of the numbers disadvantage.

If it goes well and there are no fundamental problems. It could just as easily fail and lead to a more conventional STOL type being chosen and brought into service.

That schedule is utter nonsense! We already know how long it takes to develop a new plane for god's sake, it is almost double than that!

Not sure what scenarios you're talking about? you dont build expeditionary fleet to fight USN. Those "gunship fleets" re not to fight WW3. You dont need years of supply.

Short confrontation like in Syria++ then such expeditionary force is OK

Wow... we agree... Russian carrier groups are not for WWIII and not for taking on the US or NATO fleets... they wont back away from a fight, but that is not what they are for

I am SO proud of having made this possible!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:what could be wrong if it's not used?      

And what do pilots do currently? Play poker at the airbase while the planes rot in the hangar?

Come on, enjoy this wonderful pic of a frosty and very much operational 29K and cool down a bit

hmm do you say abut long range fighters with long range weapons what makes...4-5000km radius (10,000km diameter) theater ?

Yes, I already conceded that "theater" is getting bigger and bigger to a point one must ask himself if the notion will stop making sense at all. I am curious to see how doctrine will adapt. Of course the global strike is an option, I just think it is not the best one because the dangers involved are massive.

so basically Syria/Venezuela/CAR

Whatever mission

in Syria they did? US backed down. There were not even 10 Russian fighters there.

As said, these are political decisions. They can change if US decides they don't want to compromise further.

so you want to counter 1000 fighters of USN alone? 11 CSGs ? 60 destroyers? 50 SSNs? how?

I hope they will not be together in the same theatre at the same time to start with. How you MAY get deterrence I already explained so many times I am boring myself...

Poseidon, Avangard is the  answer. Not building CVNs

I am not talking about CVNs, I am saying carriers and naval aviation in general are necessary, as opposed to only sea-launched missiles. Russia has already said they are committed to them, in whatever scope and interpretation they finally decide.