If the goal is to make a VTOL as the new deck fighter then they might as well let the Admiral K sink off Kola Bay.
Yeah, but the problem there is that some people think it is just a case of wanting VTOL deck fighters and the problem is solved.
The Soviets and the Russians have never made a fighter aircraft that is VSTOL that is anything as like as good as a simple conventional STOL jet fighter.
The Yak-36 was a testbed with no military capability at all.
The Yak-38 and Yak-38M would be vastly inferior to using an Su-25 as a fighter... at least it has a decent gun and some armour and the capacity to carry a lot of weapons.
The Yak-41 well we really don't know... there was a lot of talk and bluster, but it never really got past test bed either to be honest... the main engine seemed OK, but there were issues with landing and taking off and its weapon system was never developed and it only ever had four available wing pylons AFAIK and no possibility for using belly mounted weapons or fuel because of the heat generated during landing and takeoff there...
Some members here think it would be wonderful, but I really doubt it... just because of basic logic... to be able to hover and to manouver in the hover it needs balanced lift and when the main engine is super powerful to make it supersonic then it either needs to be near the centre of gravity of the aircraft or you need some serious lift power at the front to balance it.... you also need jet thrust nozzles in the tip of your nose, the tips of the tail and the wing tips to allow manouvering in the hover... which means piping high pressure air from the engines to the aircraft nose, aircraft wingtips, and aircraft tail... if any of those fail or are damaged you cannot land vertically and they take up internal volume that can't really be used to store fuel or electronics because of the risk of a burst pipe...
Very simply when designing something you need proportions... a certain sized aircraft needs X amount of power in terms of engine thrust... if you put too much thrust in you generally end up with a fast but short ranged aircraft. Not enough and you end up with a sluggish aircraft not suited to being a fighter or an interceptor.
By demanding VSTOL what you are doing is adding weight and greatly increasing the amount of thrust needed... the Yak-41 is an excellent case in point... it was not a big aircraft by any means, but an 15.5 ton thrust main engine... the MiG-29 was a similar size with an 18 ton MTOW with two 8.3 ton thrust engines, so 16.6 ton thrust in total engine thrust in normal flight... the Yak-41 was slightly longer by perhaps a metre and slightly narrower by a metre also, and its MTOW was about 19.5 tons so it needed a 15.5 ton thrust engine to propel it forward but it only manages 1,800km/h because 15.5 tons thrust is not enough to get it airborne... it needs two extra engines... each producing 4.2 tons of thrust to get the aircraft into the air... it is literally the same as taking the two engines from an Su-25 and sticking them directly behind the cockpit of the MiG-29 pointing downwards and modifying the RD-33 engines so they can vector downwards so that it can take off properly, but once in the air those Su-25 engines do nothing and are dead weight till it is time to land... the internal volume needed to allow two jet engines to be placed behind the cockpit increase the frontal area of the aircraft and make it a design that could never get past mach 1.6 or so... a bit like the F-35s problem... now there is a surprise.
If the future deck fighter is a VTOL then it looks like the plan is to operate no ship larger than a Mistral LPH.
And when it fails they will have neither...
I believe that is where they are heading. Reason for Mistral in first place was that I think. Putin made it clear a VTOL is in budget and in works. Very excited to see it. But in that regard, they will end up going with floating jump jet carriers be it cargo like ships to really reduce costs or something more military special like the Mistral. In either case, much cheaper.
If that is the case then I would suggest they drop the whole thing... that is even cheaper still, and will save a lot of embarrassment and technology dead ends.
No new attacks subs or Kilos... nothing.
They have ordered Kilos but have also mentioned a large order of Ladas too...
Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.
If the only purpose for Russia is to fight the US then I would agree they could only use a blue water fleet for fighting US carriers.
Russia has the weapons it needs to fight the US but unlike the US and the west it knows that will be its last fight, which makes it a fight to avoid rather than actively seek out and encourage.
Having a blue sea navy opens the entire globe to trade for Russia, trade that the US or its black hearted allies cannot or will choose not to interfere with.
A US carrier group could be best engaged with a Yasen SSN with 32 Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles... or indeed upgrade Oscars with tube liners in their Granit tubes with 72 x Zircon missiles loaded or 72 x Onyx missiles loaded... or indeed 72 x 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles leading to US carrier groups all round the world being called back home to defend the motherland....
What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?
I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.
Am I missing something?
Russian home defence can be easily performed by MiG-31s with Kinzhals... you have said as much yourself. SSBNs can launch attacks on the US from within Russian waters under Russian air cover and air support.
The future purpose of the Russian navy is to secure sea lines of communication and trade for Russia and her allies... it might include sending a corvette or frigate to deal with pirates, or it might involve sending PTG and the K to Venezuela on a good will visit... just after the US declares a naval blockade, which Russia denounces as illegal under international law. Who backs down becomes an interesting question, but who is going to trade with Russia if the US is just going to sanction them and then overthrow their democratically elected government... what if the US imposes more sanctions on North Korea and demands to inspect rail cars going into North Korea from Russia... at what point do you stand up to a bully?