What I find amusing is that you make ridiculous statements (a few samples below) and when I respond with actual facts, that you find my response abusive.
Of course because everything you say is true and is not open to interpretation. All of your sources cannot be questioned and are the gods of truth that are never ever wrong about anything at all.
I find your response abusive like now calling statements ridiculous... lets have a look shall we?
Did you hear the story of the engineer that moved from MiG to Sukhoi and took with him the design of the MiG-29... the unsuccessful T-10 turned into the MiG-29 like T-10M overnight
So I am asking if you had heard that story... WTF is ridiculous about that?
The Su-33 was a warmed over Su-27P with folding bits and a tail hook.
The Su-33 is a warmed over Su-27P... apart from a bit of strengthening here and there and folding bits and tail hook it is hardly a completely new design.
But you claim that is ridiculous.
The T-10M looks rather more like a MiG-29 than the T-10 does.
I was meaning the T-10S but if you understand English and have a brain, what is ridiculous about that statement?
The T-10 did not look very much at all like the MiG-29... the T-10S and T-10M look more like the MiG-29 than the first prototype T-10 does.
Again you are saying that is ridiculous... fine... you can have any opinion you please... but that does not make my comment ridiculous... or even wrong.
Things like inflight refuelling probes were no advantage then either with strategic aviation being the only operators of inflight refuelling aircraft in their forces.
Russia is already at a numbers disadvantage in terms of fighters and you think using half your fighters as tankers to give their fighters extra reach that they don't need is a good idea?
Fine, but my statement is not ridiculous either.
The only planes on the Kuznetsov that could refuel the Su-33s would be the Su-25UTG
That is not ridiculous, that is just wrong.
It was going to be a strike aircraft but probably wouldn't make any sense without catapults to get airborne at any useful weight.
It was pitched as a strike aircraft like the Su-34 AFAIK.
It failed because they didn't have a strike role for aircraft... that is what the Granits and Kalibres are for.
Centreline pylon on the MiG-29 is normally occupied by a fuel tank... in a buddy refuelling situation both aircraft can carry a centreline fuel tank.
So you are trying to say the buddy refuelling pod cannot be carried on a wing pylon?
Post some evidence and I will accept that to be wrong but being a
makes me not care so much about what is true from you.
Btw the picture you show was neither a Storm Shadow or drone attack at all, and your Migs would have burned just as well.
So if they burn on the ground it makes more sense to have smaller cheaper fighters...
Sukhoi has 1600km combat range
It is a bigger more expensive aircraft...
And most of the time it doesn't operate with full fuel so the range advantage is only theoretical most of the time.
Arkanghelesk, now your defence of MiG-35 it is becoming surreal: how many of these are been produced until now, six?
The choices of the Russian AF, rather than reflecting the value and usefulness of the aircraft.
Older MiG-29 still in service, Su-25 and even the An-72P of Border Guards with their gun pod would be enough or the task.
Of those aircraft only the MiG29 would be fast enough to chase down cruise missiles.... and gun pods would not come in to it... you remember the Georgian drone shoot down with the MiG-29 with an R-73.
Introducing the Mig-76 "Checkers" from the newly formed 1st Anti-Drone Guards Unit
So the MiG-76 flys before the Su-75...
My guess is that they were not really needed, but to increase the chances of export contracts. That's it.
Of course... that is why the Russians had such a bloated prewar budget of 65 billion... always wasting money on things they don't need just to enhance their export potential... right.
MiG has no capacity to build planes en masse, unlike Sukhoi,
Neither has the capacity... they are departments in the OAK/UAC.
But those 6 serial aircraft were built in a factory that I would wager probably were not also making flankers or Ilyusions or Hinds...
Currently, MiG is only upgrading MiG-31s and designing the PAK DP. Diverting personnel needed to build Sukhois to restart production of vintage fighters is a total waste of resources during a war for survival.
The Su-27 flew before the MiG-29 so ancient applies to the Flankers too.
Of course, restarting production is possible if there's a push from the top, but this would cause serious delays in the current projects.
Do you have evidence for that or just pulling that from somewhere dark and warm...
Regarding Kuznetsov's air wing, it is unlikely anyone will procure new fighters. The ship will keep its existing MiG/Su mix until they wear down. Eventually, some drones will be added. If/when a new aircraft carrier is built, which could be 15-20 years from now, the Su-57 will not be a new plane anymore—similar to how the Su-35 is viewed now. It will be good enough but not top-tier. So, either a navalized Su-75 (or similar) or the Su-57 will be considered, and perhaps something sixth-generation.
Sukhoi are working on a naval Su-57K type and I rather suspect they would reject a single engined carrier based fighter so that model of the twin engined light 5th gen fighter might start to make sense.
In terms of drones MiG had a drone model too and the S-70 could probably be navalised too.
With its new engines and lack of external weapons drag I would say the Su-57 could probably already take off from the Kuznetsov just fine... but I am sure Mir will tell me I am being ridiculous about that too.
Did Mig production staff get redeployed to Su?
How many Sukhoi production staff are working on Superjet and Su-57 and Su-75 and S-70 and Su-34 and Su-30 and of course upgrades to Su-33 and not to mention Su-25 upgrades and potential replacement... but of course give them more work that will help the Russian AF a lot.