Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CVOh no no no I am just his trusted VSTOL adviser
Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so. That means, being capable in the mid-long term of building vessels carrying robust numbers of high performance multirole fighters and their supporting assets.It does actually. Challenges are being faced all the time. You just need to build economically viable ships that fit purpose. Im afraid if you'd start to build mammoth-ware you'll end up with obsolete design still on shipyard. After years.Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years.
How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you
I know R-77-1, not that M-1. It of course matters what model because you want to be capable to shoot the enemy while you are still not in range of their missiles. USAF or USN do not have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M. I agree that both sides pursue the range extension of their MRAAMs and they do not seem too far away in that regard, with the possible exception of the Meteor for which Russia does not seem to have an analogue yet (no news of R-77-PD or Izd. 180 BD), though It could be said that at least they have an alternative in the R-37M, which is way better even when also much bigger.R-77M-1? like5 years iike 180 BD not yet tho. But doest it really matter which model? There will me always missiles with similar performance in both sides. Light and heavy fighters can carry the alike.
The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.and what in which characteristics? in ASW capabilities? for transport or perhap ship grouping point defense? Kuz is 60ktons Wasp 40ktons / Juan Carlos I 26ktons
LHA is an universal ship. Sea-control is one of roles. If you go CV you still need build something for amphibious forces (and eventually ASW ships) .
Once you have created a huge "no enter" zone around your fleet with heavy fighters you can indulge in having other fighters of lesser capacity doing the bombing yes. But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.Did you see any bombings in Syria by RuAF? how many KABs-500 were carrying Su-34 in most of sorties? 1-2? and what was radius of action? 300-400kms?
No we don't agree, both are very relevant since they constitute a weapons system. Above you say yourself that MRAAMs of both sides are always going to have similar characteristics, in such conditions it would be the fighter that would make the difference with its kinematic contribution among other things.OK then we agree that not a fighter but missile is a key here?
Don't exactly know, this would need to be calculated with very concrete data considering burning time of the rocket engine, end-game dynamics, acceleration of the aircraft, launching altitude etc. But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)Kinematics- if you have 1,8 of 2Ma is so different in ~180kms?
It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.and you said thet this is not about Midway scenario. They are not designed for this task as well as those you'd love to see. Russia cannot respond with same resource scale. So always will be less and smaller CVGs forces. If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs they can 4 more CSGs just to extr cover them. Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.
Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.Iraqi
destructionFreedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say " coloniallow insensitivity war " category.