Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

It excludes developments based on the Yak-141.

That's in ur judgement! The Yak-141 can have its next generation based on it, just like Grippen followed Viggen in Sweden & F-18E/F followed F-18C/D in USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Or it could be an entirely new 5th/6th generation but with STOVL capability.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Or it could be an entirely new 5th/6th generation but with STOVL capability.

That would be logically best way of investing money and get desired effect.

BTW I cannot really understand why GB/LMFS are alwasy mentioning Yak-141 when from the other hands they dont compare Kub with S-350.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use the Su-33/-34/-57 as a base for STOVL.

"The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational." The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.
Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.
The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.
"The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted. https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Not really, i am jut convinced that Royal Navy first now RuN and  Chinese Navy have just started new trend. With technology improving more and more applications VSTOL fighters will be possible.

Yes, in the Chinese case the trend includes EMALS and the J-31 too. Cannot take Royal Navy and rest of US lapdogs in the same league as Russia, China, US and maybe India in the future, because they don't have the same needs. As to Russia, still needs to be seen, could be either way.

Well I asked for realistic one.  None of blockades or attacks on Russian ships cannot end otherwise then III WW.  there will be no top gun contesting. In this case 1 or 2 CVNs large and full of Su-57 wornt change a thing. With Russian 1 or max 2 "real carriers" Us has 11, France will have 1-2 and UK 2.  In best case you have 7:1.

To start with, you don't see the case for a Russian carrier. For you there are no "realistic" deployments that call for it and its performance is not very important, since in the end aggression against Russian assets will be automatically WWIII. I don't think the same that's all.

Surely RuN wants to have something to wave flag.   Reasonable airwing 24-36 has  to to simple things:
(A) additional air protection against air threats in case of conflict. Vide Arctic
(B) eventual anti ship missions (vide GZURs with range 1,500km)
(C) air support colonial wars' operations (CAR or SAR type)
(C) air support amphibious operations

You see? For you Russian carrier is mere flag waiving exercise. No need to spend the money in carriers, LHDs and much less in completely new, hi-tech STOVL planes to be produced in very small numbers.

You see that's the whole problem when arguing with you.  You seem to ignore cost/benefit and moeny supply restrictions challenges. In the world outside forum money talks and rulez. Of course Russia had economy of size f Soviet Union and wanted to build 6 CVNs then we live in different reality is this might be useful to do it.  

But we are talking about Russia, next 10-15 years max in the future. For one 2 carriers building a new EMALS and AWACS platform built against 80s specs are very expensive task with little practical return.

This is mere invention from you, just because I think differently in terms of carrier development. Have shown cost estimations for carriers and they are economically feasible. On the other hand your STOVL would be hugely expensive and not necessary but you still keep cheering for it. No need for further comments...

Do you really think Putin made decision about spending equivalent of billions $ just due to emotions?!         This had to be extensive discussion with military and MiC both aerospace and shipbuilding. Analysis, simulations, money and risk calculations.  Before decision was made.

I prove your statements about Chinese EMALS are unfounded and you resort to an unrelated issue based again on the Supreme Commander...

I can only guess why they have decided to choose VSTOL. Ships carrying them dont have to be as large and expensive. Shipbuilding industry just is poorly developed in comparison with aerospace one. Unlike air force navy needs to replace almost all ships soon to remain combat ready. Engaging in Shtorm class CVN, amid refurbishing even 1155 ASW frigates, would be mildly speaking bizarre approach.  

Only it is so soon in program development that you don't know whether they are firmly going for the STOVL or just making preliminary work on it. Decision for kind of carrier is still not closed most probably, also no go given for the LHDs. In this situation going for the STOVL regardless of those two points would be a little crazy.

You read but somehow dont see most important stuff. But it must be your  car dealer when you want to buy a new one        
....

This is so unhinged I do not know what to say, apart that I read what I wanted to get confirmed: technical feasibility of Su-57K

US has never sold anything really modern to anybody yet. Russia should invest money because maybe  India could buy? like Su-57?

Only to Israel, only in that case it does not qualify as selling because it is normally for free, you are right.
French have US steam catapults and are discussing EMALS. Do you have a proof they would not be selling to India regardless of the geopolitical situation and the price? Good for you, I don't.
As for Russia, it all depends on the effort and price I guess. Again you seem to know more than the rest of us.

It's great that Germany with such generosity are paying for French imperial ambitions. But what when Kanzlerin Merkel ist weg vom Fenster? And new German government says no more German  money for French CVN?

This is absurd sorry

You seem to be lost in time. Yak-141 should be compared with  its contemporary  so not FCAS but SuperEntendard.      

Ok, be it 5G. It will be more advanced than obsolete FCAS, F/A-XX in your opinion right?

confirmed MoD order? otherwise they dont.

Please try to make some sense. I said they currently have naval fighters and also other options besides STOVL with the Su-57K. Your answer is random noise.

because it was. What was on Sthorm what wasnt  on  Ulyanovsk?

EMALS to start with? New reactors? Essentially everything?

Regarding the MiG-29K: don't tell me that BS, tell MoD. They ordered in 2012 and got served in 2015-2016 a plane with 30 years so they must be highly incompetent according to you. And also according to you they should ditch them because they are sooo cold war... don't understand you. They will be used up until they fall apart like any military HW, in some 15-20 years most probably.

@Tsavo Lion: the journalist you quote seems not to understand that performing a vertical fighter landing on a frigate helo spot in the wake of the superstructure and with the motions a smaller vessel is exposed to is essentially a no go, at least for current state of the art. Reality is not so rosy for STOVL plane as some guys think.

Tsavo Lion wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if they use the Su-33/-34/-57 as a base for STOVL.

"The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational." The VTOL design would enable

Depending what does mean here "on basis".  Any Su-27 derivative makes no sense since this is supposed to be operational in 2030s. Su-57 tehc could be not even applicable without update.
As for Su-57. If using Al-41F izd "30" or its improved version, TVC or flaps STOL tech means on basis, then I hope so. If using airframe  very unlikely to me, but this would be really sensation. A nice one to me. and evenmore to GB + LMFS

A fighter with T/W like Su-57 could actually start vertically with MTOW ( 1,16 , normal mission weight 1,36).

Against cold be size. Less can be carried by CV.  Large one has advantage that it should be easier to get longer range and payload. Usage of Su-57 components could also to cut development time.[/quote]

@Tsavo Lion: the journalist you quote seems not to understand that performing a vertical fighter landing on a frigate helo spot in the wake of the superstructure and with the motions a smaller vessel is exposed to is essentially a no go, at least for current state of the art.

A frigate now is the size of a DDG, & it can slow down or stop before recovering a STOVL. But under normal conditions most likely they'll operate from larger ships.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The Russian Marine doctrine of 2015 explains clearly that the future fighters of the Russian Navy will be of a new generation (refered to the 5th generation).

It excludes developments based on the Yak-141.

dont mind GB. His mins stopped following tech form 90s

New Russian VSTOL should be not 5th but 6thn gen( i.e. DEW, drone mode)

6th generation is not defined still, and will not be defined as drone mode, unless you want to call the MiG-21 robotized of 6th generation. Tobotization can be applied to aircrafts of every generation, making them drones. This definition of 6th generation is only propaganda and has not technical defense.

Technically, developments based on the Yak-141 can reach 4++++++++ Generation, buth can not reach 5th Generation. As consequence developments based on the Yak-141 are exluded by the Russian Marine Doctrine of 2015 that talks clearly about fighters of a new generation, at the time, the 5th Generation.

It means a new potential STOVL or VTOL manned fighter which development begins now, is not even on digital means. In a few words, the Tu-PAK-DA and the MiG-PAK-DP-41 are like 10 years of work ahead of a potential new STOVL or VTOL manned fighter which design can begin now.

With few exceptions, naval deck fighters r always 1-2 generation behind the land based fighters. The Russian Marine Doctrine of 2015 is superseded by the new 1 in 2017 & may be changed again.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/russias-new-and-unrealistic-naval-doctrine/
https://idsa.in/idsacomments/decoding-russia-2017-naval-doctrine_rroy_240817

Have u heard of an expression "read between the lines?" Try that for a change!

LMFS wrote:Yes, in the Chinese case the trend includes EMALS and the J-31 too. (1)Cannot take Royal Navy and rest of US lapdogs in the same league as Russia, China, US and maybe India in the future, because they don't have the same needs. As to Russia, still needs to be seen, could be either way.

Country............GDP..(PPP/2017)
Russia..-............$4,000B
US ......-...........$19,400B
China...-...........$23,000B
India....-.............$9,500B


China is most powerful economically country in the world. they can build more CVNs than US. India is growing 8-9% per annum. in 10 years they will be close to USA size.
Russia even with enormous acceleration will be $5-6,000B.

Simply I dont see money in Russia to be spent on EMALS, Shtorms. Toys are fine but it is like buying Mercedes when  your roof is leaking. Perhaps in 20 years of so. But till then EMALs and CVNs can become obsolete      


(1) can you elaborate, I am not sure what you meant ?      

LMFS wrote:

Well I asked for realistic one.  None of blockades or attacks on Russian ships cannot end otherwise then III WW.  there will be no top gun contesting. In this case 1 or 2 CVNs large and full of Su-57 wornt change a thing. With Russian 1 or max 2 "real carriers" Us has 11, France will have 1-2 and UK 2.  In best case you have 7:1.

To start with, you don't see the case for a Russian carrier. For you there are no "realistic" deployments that call for it and its performance is not very important, since in the end aggression against Russian assets will be automatically WWIII. I don't think the same that's all.

I was talking about NATO aggression, like in Syria. Presence of small contingent is just fine for 3 years now. Would it change more fighters? no otherwise RuAF would have  sent already.
and yes,  flag waving is also important.

So no there is no need to be a drama queen         just to take right perspective       same as Ru MoD does.

LMFS wrote:No need to spend the money in carriers, LHDs and much less in completely new, hi-tech STOVL planes to be produced in very small numbers.

Why do you think it will be build in small numbers? it's illogical to fund a new fighter project and not to build and use it,  Y. This is not case as with MiG-35, which was never requested by MoD.

LMFS wrote: This is mere invention from you, just because I think differently in terms of carrier development. Have shown cost estimations for carriers and they are economically feasible. On the other hand your STOVL would be hugely expensive and not necessary but you still keep cheering for it.

I can cheer only from one reason: my reasoning is logical. That actually most of  my ideas about what to do with relatively small budget seem to be implemented in real life.  Perhaps is you take into consideration current state of navy and its budget it would be easier for you to follow  my logic.

LMFS wrote:

I can only guess why they have decided to choose VSTOL. Ships carrying them dont have to be as large and expensive. Shipbuilding industry just is poorly developed in comparison with aerospace one. Unlike air force navy needs to replace almost all ships soon to remain combat ready. Engaging in Shtorm class CVN, amid refurbishing even 1155 ASW frigates, would be mildly speaking bizarre approach.  

Only it is so soon in program development that you don't know whether they are firmly going for the STOVL or just making preliminary work on it. Decision for kind of carrier is still not closed most probably, also no go given for the LHDs. In this situation going for the STOVL regardless of those two points would be a little crazy.

Wow you believe in plastic fantastic from Krylov and EMALS from shipyard (which is neither paid neither ordered by MoD)  and the official program is to you "preliminary study"        and only because you dont like real outcome?  wow that's undisputed logic

CVNs will see when and which size and level of universality they are going to  built. IF suddenly navy gets super dooper funding why not? 10 Shtorhms can be built. But this scenario is likely a bit more then me winning lottery.

BTW LHD will be built anyway. They are needed in any navy.  Whether they will carry fighters it's another question.

LMFS wrote:  apart that I read what I wanted to get confirmed: technical feasibility of Su-57K

Of course they did and they were correct. Same as every such conversion.  

LMFS wrote:

US has never sold anything really modern to anybody yet. Russia should invest money because maybe  India could buy? like Su-57?

French have US steam catapults and are discussing EMALS.

Did US applied sanctions to any of French prime minister? Modi was banned 10 years form entering USA. France is no geopolitical danger for US. Unlike India.

LMFS wrote: Do you have a proof they would not be selling to India regardless of the geopolitical situation and the price? Good for you, I don't.

History and unreliability of USA as a partner is not enough? With the USA you can only talk when you're on your knees. Only Russia so far agreed ot transfer technology to build fighters to India.

LMFS wrote: As for Russia, it all depends on the effort and price I guess

You are perfectly right here. Only  budget here is missing to me.

LMFS wrote:

me wrote:You seem to be lost in time. Yak-141 should be compared with  its contemporary  so not FCAS but SuperEntendard.      

Ok, be it 5G. It will be more advanced than obsolete FCAS, F/A-XX in your opinion right?

Get real bro,  it will be on pair with potential adversaries. And in this case it should  be closer to 6th gen then 5th.

LMFS wrote:

confirmed MoD order? otherwise they dont.

Please try to make some sense. I said they currently have naval fighters and also other options besides STOVL with the Su-57K.

Talking about noise, your wishes are not reality. The difference is substantial.  VSTOL program is ordered and funded by MoD and Su-57 is feasible.
It wasnt ordered nor any works are funded in this direction.

LMFS wrote:

me wrote:because it was. What was on Sthorm what wasnt  on  Ulyanovsk?

EMALS to start with? New reactors? Essentially everything?

ok so Shtorm has catapults. So did Ulyanovsk.  Shtorm has nuclear propulsion. So did Ulyanovsk.  Its precisely what I was saying an old Ulyanovsk project  with updated parts. Just updated. What is the difference? any innovative deck solutions, no DEW, any solutions to place drones of all kinds? a  place for S-500 ?    

{\"LMFS" wrote: Regarding the MiG-29K: don't tell me that BS, tell MoD. They ordered in 2012 and got served in 2015-2016 a plane with 30 years so they must be highly incompetent according to you. And also according to you they should ditch them because they are sooo cold war... don't understand you. They will be used up until they fall apart like any military HW, in some 15-20 years most probably.

Wow, so many emotions, so little facts. First flight of MiG-29k was in 1988. Since 90s program was actually dead.  Russian Navy preferred Su-33 over MiGs. Though service life of Su-33 was due in 2015 and  Indians came into scene and signed contract for MiGs. MiGs were reworked of course to meet their expectations.

RuN  singed contract for for MiGs in 2011. Four year before Su-33 "expiry" .  MoD was in hurry to get Su-33 replacement with reasonably little money. No magical MiG qualities in this.
And yes it is 80s design, only updated for Indian contract.



Now cerebral fitness exercise  you:  MoD ordered 24 MiGs , an instead to order more they decided to extend Su-33 service life by 10 years. Till 2025.  One MiG-29k is lost, one AFAIK is not in flyable conditions for a time being.

And instead ordering MiG-35 ro more MiG-29k ... RuN funded another fighter program! Wow some conspiracy against best of the best fighters or what?

LMFS wrote: @Tsavo Lion: the journalist you quote seems not to understand that performing a vertical fighter landing on a frigate helo spot in the wake of the superstructure and with the motions a smaller vessel is exposed to is essentially a no go, at least for current state of the art. Reality is not so rosy for STOVL plane as some guys think.

and EMALS is rosy although none of EMALS actually  works [/quote]

eehnie wrote: 6th generation is not defined still, and will not be defined as drone mode, unless you want to call the MiG-21 robotized of 6th generation. Tobotization can be applied to aircrafts of every generation, making them drones. This definition of 6th generation is only propaganda and has not technical defense

Well, if 6th gen is not defined then 5th and 4th arent either. there is no hard line between generations bur set of features they posses (or not). There are specs for next gen fighters in US for some time though. Whether will all of them be applied for 6th gen? pozhyviom uvidim


As for unmanned fighters. Fighters are supposed to be autonomous at some point of time,  what in range of 10-15 years is very likely.  There is substantial difference between manned and unmanned fighter overload. Pilot can survive  +8-9g? and what if drone can +20? imagine maneuverable fight. Which fighter can now fight with more then say 15g?

Some time ag in EW i quoted KRET designer.  He said that EW weapons, Russians are working on, are not safe for manned fighters.  Integrated DEW is also one of requirements.

eehnie wrote: It means a new potential STOVL or VTOL manned fighter which development begins now, is not even on digital means. In a few words, the Tu-PAK-DA and the MiG-PAK-DP-41 are like 10 years of work ahead of a potential new STOVL or VTOL manned fighter which design can begin now.

rather they are 10 years technologically behind

Tsavo Lion wrote: Have u heard of an expression "read between the lines?" Try that for a change!

You should add but only counting prime numbered lines

No, the Yak-44 "was stressed to allow catapult launching and arrested landings, but was also capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers (later to become known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class). ..was abandoned by the Russian Navy in 1993." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44

Hahahahaha.... bullshit.

If it could operate from the kuznetsov without a catapult WTF were they spending enormous amounts of money developing catapults for?

Which aircraft were they planning to operate from their carriers would justify a catapult launch... honestly...

Think of it in terms of kids and the long jump... the slim fit strong kids run down the track and jump from the line and will manage quite a distance... if you add a ramp so they are jumping from higher up they will jump further because they are jumping from higher and their momentum will take them further from higher up.

The fat slow kid with Asthma is not going to jump very far... if you add a ramp he will just slow down a lot and just fall off the end of the ramp... the ramp wont help him jump further... he will probably wont even manage to make the sand...

There won't be pure helicopter carriers in the VMF, but there r plans for UDKs, or in English LHDs. So, it's a moot point.

They never had any plans for operating VSTOL jets with the Mistrals, and no small carrier they do design is likely to have a fixed wing fighter... why do you think the Ka-52Ks have been fitted with AESA radars and air to air missiles?

In fact the Ka-52Ks with decent modern AESA radars could probably be launched to look for low flying threats like aircraft coming in low or missiles, but most of the time the threats they detect would be best engaged with ship launched SAMs.

The extra warning the ships get because the helo can detect low flying targets further out will make them rather better defended against attack than if they didn't have them, but I really don't think normally these helos will be doing anything except using air to ground weapons to support a landing and shooting down enemy CAS aircraft.

They would certainly never mount a landing with a helicopter carrying ship without the Kuznetsov there too to provide fighter cover... so putting VSTOL fighters on the helicopter carriers is redundant... in fact more than that... counter productive because more helos would be rather more valuable in such a situation.

With technology improving more and more applications VSTOL fighters will be possible.

You are expecting a lot...

With Russian 1 or max 2 "real carriers" Us has 11, France will have 1-2 and UK 2. In best case you have 7:1.

Sounds like really good odds when Russian carriers have Zircon and US carriers have Harpoon.

Surely RuN wants to have something to wave flag. Reasonable airwing 24-36 has to to simple things:

Which is slightly bigger than what Kuznetsov carries... DUH!!!!

But we are talking about Russia, next 10-15 years max in the future. For one 2 carriers building a new EMALS and AWACS platform built against 80s specs are very expensive task with little practical return.

Little practical return.... because the technology involved in EMALS is one use... it can only launch large aircraft from ships at sea... there is no other use for high capacity electrical capacitor banks, super magnets, working with plasma, superconductors, etc etc... whereas every airport in the world needs commuter planes that are much less safe... much more prone to crashing, much more expensive, but can take off vertically from tiny little useless ships that are no good for anything except burning up money...

Using the same logic why bother with Su-57 or the Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets, and Typoon vehicle families... what a risk!

Do you really think Putin made decision about spending equivalent of billions $ just due to emotions?! affraid affraid affraid This had to be extensive discussion with military and MiC both aerospace and shipbuilding. Analysis, simulations, money and risk calculations. Before decision was made.

If the decision was so obvious... why did Putin have to make it?

Does he have to sign off on every area of development and production?

Of just the dodgy ones that no senior military official wants to sign their own name to in case it collapses into useless?

I can only guess why they have decided to choose VSTOL. Ships carrying them dont have to be as large and expensive. Shipbuilding industry just is poorly developed in comparison with aerospace one. Unlike air force navy needs to replace almost all ships soon to remain combat ready. Engaging in Shtorm class CVN, amid refurbishing even 1155 ASW frigates, would be mildly speaking bizarre approach.

If you can't have as many ships it makes sense to make the ones you do have as capable as possible... and bigger means more capable.

You seem to be lost in time. Yak-141 should be compared with its contemporary so not FCAS but SuperEntendard.

Years of good service vs cancelled in the prototype stage... you certainly can compare but the comparison is not very flattering...

(2) contract from 2012 stated 20 MiG-29K + 4 29KUB till 2015.
2015-1988 = ? This design is from 80s. It is just upgrade and you want it to serve in 2030s?

There was no order for the MiG-29K, the order was for the upgraded MiG-29KR, which is related to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 in that is shares the same modern aircraft made of new materials...

meh just frozen indefinitely after building a mockup and engines were finished in 2012 or so .

Wow, you mentioned time travel.... I saw that photo of the mockup of the Yak-44 in the 1990s... why would a programme that was frozen in the early 1990s stop in 2012?

Perhaps you are confusing it with the MiG-29KR that was redesigned in 2011-12 for the Russian Navy after completion of the aircraft for the Indian navy had set up production for said aircraft.

Well, Russian, Chinese are developing VSTOL, USMC is using, RN too, Italian soon too. So you got stone that can deny reality? wow are you Theanus from Marvell?

The Russians have said they are going to develop one, they also developed the Yak-41 and ended up not putting it on ships...

your mind is not in 80. is in 70s. Now we have almost 2020s. When VSTOL fighters (both Russian and Chinese) will be operational we move to 2030s.
Technology according to you didnt move in 60 years?

By the 2030s the aircraft will be so expensive the pilot will still be ejected but the parachute will land the plane safely... gravity has not changed and the ground still does not like STOVL aircraft.

[quote]New Russian VSTOL should be not 5th but 6thn gen( i.e. DEW, drone mode)/[quote]

Yeah... like I said the new VSTOL will be imaginary...

BTW I cannot really understand why GB/LMFS are alwasy mentioning Yak-141 when from the other hands they dont compare Kub with S-350.

Because KUB is not related to S-350... S-350 comes from the S-200/S-300/S-400 family line, while KUB is in the SA-2/KUB/BUK/BUK/BUK family like (ie SA-2/SA-6/SA-11/SA-17/and whatever the new name for the lastest BUK is).

I wouldn't be surprised if they use the Su-33/-34/-57 as a base for STOVL.

"The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational." The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.
Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.
The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.
"The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted. https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

Thank you... down that path leads stupid.

Pretty soon a little dingy can have 5 STOVL fighters that will be every bit as capable as anything the enemy could possibly make and it will all be so cheap... instead of having a 5 billion dollar carrier with 40 planes you can have 40 fishing boats each with one fighter for $200,000 dollars each... but when you are not using them for war they can be used for fishing so really they are free....

NO. You can use a conventional aircraft design for a vertical landing aircraft... to land vertically it has to hover.... and to hover it needs to be balanced.... a really big aircraft like a Flanker or Su-57 needs a really really big engine, so to balance that it needs four really big engines two at the rear and two near the front... it also needs high pressure gas from those engines blowing at the nose, and each wing tip and the tail so that it can manouver in the hover when the air is not flowing over its control surfaces so its wings and tail don't do anything in the hover.

Also with those powerful engines blowing super hot air directly down you have to make sure none of it goes in any of the huge intakes that suck in air to keep those big engines running because if they do you will get an engine stall and the aircraft will drop like a rock and burn.

China is most powerful economically country in the world. they can build more CVNs than US. India is growing 8-9% per annum. in 10 years they will be close to USA size.
Russia even with enormous acceleration will be $5-6,000B.

Which just goes to show what value GDP has in a discussion about aircraft carriers... zero.

Simply I dont see money in Russia to be spent on EMALS, Shtorms. Toys are fine but it is like buying Mercedes when your roof is leaking. Perhaps in 20 years of so. But till then EMALs and CVNs can become obsolete

Money IS being spent on EMALS and how could operating heavier aircraft from a carrier be a bad thing?

Even a STOVL aircraft would benefit from a catapult to allow it to operate with more fuel and weapons...

Now cerebral fitness exercise you: MoD ordered 24 MiGs , an instead to order more they decided to extend Su-33 service life by 10 years. Till 2025. One MiG-29k is lost, one AFAIK is not in flyable conditions for a time being.

And instead ordering MiG-35 ro more MiG-29k ... RuN funded another fighter program! Wow some conspiracy against best of the best fighters or what?

OK if we are talking about mental fitness, the mod ordered the MiG-29KR because the production line was open because it had just fulfilled an order for the Indian Navy, but the MiG-29KRs design is unified with the MiG-35, so as the Russian AF buys MiG-35s in dribs and drabs for the moment they are keeping the MiG-29KR assembly factory open and working... why bother buying more MiG-29KRs now while the K is not operational.... when full production of the MiG-35 ramps up and they make 200 aircraft while they are working through the orders they can slip a few MiG-29KRs through for use on the K between MiG-35s.

and EMALS is rosy although none of EMALS actually works

and STOVL is rosy although none of STOVLs actually works...

No, the Yak-44 "was stressed to allow catapult launching and arrested landings, but was also capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers (later to become known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class). ..was abandoned by the Russian Navy in 1993." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44

Hahahahaha.... bullshit. If it could operate from the kuznetsov without a catapult WTF were they spending enormous amounts of money developing catapults for?

It was supposed to have AN-70 engines with max. power output of 14K horsepower (10,440 kW); with those it could be possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27

It's max. takeoff weight: 40,000 kg (88,200 lb) vs. E-2's
max. takeoff weight: 57,500 lb (26,083 kg) & 2 × Allison / Rolls-Royce T56-A-427 (E-2C), T56-A-427A (E-2D) turboprop, 5,100 shp (3,800 kW) each:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44#Specifications_(Yak-44E)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C/D)

So, it was stressed & powerful enough for STOBAR. They were working on CAT just in case heavier fighters & other planes were going to be used later on Ulyanovsk class CVNs.

..a really big aircraft like a Flanker or Su-57 needs a really really big engine, so to balance that it needs four really big engines two at the rear and two near the front...

They could have just 2 at the middle/rear, ducts in the front to balance it & smaller valve-controlled nozzles in the nose, tail, and wingtips to provide control at low airspeeds, just like on Harriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#Design

GarryB wrote:OK if we are talking about mental fitness, the mod ordered the MiG-29KR because the production line was open because it had just fulfilled an order for the Indian Navy, but the MiG-29KRs design is unified with the MiG-35, so as the Russian AF buys MiG-35s in dribs and drabs for the moment they are keeping the MiG-29KR assembly factory open and working... why bother buying more MiG-29KRs now while the K is not operational.... when full production of the MiG-35 ramps up and they make 200 aircraft while they are working through the orders they can slip a few MiG-29KRs through for use on the K between MiG-35s.

Great interpretation but now just  lit facts with no interpretations?

1) 1988 first flight of MG-29k

2) 90s program frozen indefinitely, no more MoD funding

3) Su-33 as preferred fighter was built for Kuz

4) Indians in early 20 ordered 2 batches of MiG-29k

5) Su-33 was a solid redesign of MiG-33 and lines were closed and service life was till 2015 only

6) Using running manufacturing lines  RuN ordered 24 only MiG-29k. Delivery till 2015

7) Short after MiG-29k were in use in RuN service life of Su-33 was extended till 2025

 One of Kuzbased MiGs was lost

9) MoD in 2017 (last MiGs delivered in 2015) said that in 10 years MiGs will be obsolete. Started talking about new fighter.

10) in 2018 officially MoD stated that VSTOL program started in 2017

11) MiG wont be dead as they  work on MG-41 and fast drones


bonus:
12) wiki about Indian MiG-29k

GB wrote: is developing conspiration theory here"]

me wrote:Do you really think Putin made decision about spending equivalent of billions $ just due to emotions?!  affraid  affraid  affraid   This had to be extensive discussion with military and MiC both aerospace and shipbuilding. Analysis, simulations, money and risk calculations.  Before decision was made.

If the decision was so obvious... why did Putin have to make it? Does he have to sign off on every area of development and production?Of just the dodgy ones that no senior military official wants to sign their own name to in case it collapses into useless?

Actually your right! In normal case decision about development  of Avangard, PAK-DA  or Poseidon are made on level of deputy of deputy of acting deputy undersecretary in MoD. Supreme Commander should not be aware where billions go.

After 30 years failure story with MiG-29k and MiG-35 indeed military should be prudent in wasting money.  

GB wrote:

Simply I dont see money in Russia to be spent on EMALS, Shtorms. Toys are fine but it is like buying Mercedes when  your roof is leaking. Perhaps in 20 years of so. But till then EMALs and CVNs can become obsolete

Money IS being spent on EMALS and how could operating heavier aircraft from a carrier be a bad thing?
Even a STOVL aircraft would benefit from a catapult to allow it to operate with more fuel and weapons...

Well shipyard once said is spending.  Can be 3 engineers browsing internet about new updates. Nothing from MoD tho. EMALS of course can be beneficial  when you build in many instances. The difference is that  US can potentially install it on 11 CVNs. + sell 12 th +13th to France.

GB wrote:

me wrote:There won't be pure helicopter carriers in the VMF, but there r plans for UDKs, or in English LHDs. So, it's a my point.

They never had any plans for operating VSTOL jets with the Mistrals, and no small carrier they do design is likely to have a fixed wing fighter... why do you think the Ka-52Ks have been fitted with AESA radars and air to air missiles?

In fact the Ka-52Ks with decent modern AESA radars could probably be launched to look for low flying threats like aircraft coming in low or missiles, but most of the time the threats they detect would be best engaged with ship launched SAMs.

The extra warning the ships get because the helo can detect low flying targets further out will make them rather better defended against attack than if they didn't have them, but I really don't think normally these helos will be doing anything except using air to ground weapons to support a landing and shooting down enemy CAS aircraft.

They would certainly never mount a landing with a helicopter carrying ship without the Kuznetsov there too to provide fighter cover... so putting VSTOL fighters on the helicopter carriers is redundant... in fact more than that... counter productive because more helos would be rather more valuable in such a situation.

(1) It is amazing how an intelligent guy like you tends not to see that situation changes couple of years. "Mistral story" started on Euro Naval in 2008. Then Russia was quite a different country then in 2018, not mention geopolitical situation. Remember army and navy status in 2008?  Since 2013 USA aggression against Russia in Ukraine geopolitical situation made Russia to speed up all things that were in "background".

(2) VSTOL decision was made later in 2018.  10 years later.

(3) Helicopters or any virtual lift system yes. Especially with airborne Hermes they can have ~200km range.

(4) Kuz is one and cannot be in 4 places in same time. Not to mention Arctic.  Kuz needs new fighters too. And max 15 years more.


I dunno whether they would decide to use many smaller ships or less bigger. Less bigger has little value for Russia  since one in Arctic, second in pacific and third? oh no no third can afford.

GB wrote:

With Russian 1 or max 2 "real carriers" Us has 11, France will have 1-2 and UK 2.  In best case you have 7:1.

Sounds like really good odds when Russian carriers have Zircon and US carriers have Harpoon.

yo yo bro,wake up.  Harpoons, Yak-41 you are still in 80s. Russian CV earliest will be 2030. Then USN can use  at least of JASSM-XR mutation (1,600km range) or hypersonic SM-3 mutation ? (2,500km range) . Not to mention 10x more fighters.

GB wrote:

Surely RuN wants to have something to wave flag.   Reasonable airwing 24-36 has  to to simple things:

Which is slightly bigger than what Kuznetsov carries... DUH!!!!

Because Kuz wasnt' built as CV but TAKR. The fun is that Kuz has no offensive missiles anymore . But this didnt not yield find increase of r hangar size.

Below INS Vikramaditya

GB wrote: Little practical return.... because the technology involved in EMALS is one use... it can only launch large aircraft from ships at sea...
there is no other use for high capacity electrical capacitor banks, super magnets, working with plasma, superconductors, etc etc... whereas every airport in the world needs commuter planes that are much less safe... much more prone to crashing, much more expensive, but can take off vertically from tiny little useless ships that are no good for anything except burning up money...

So where exactly is used US EMALS tech outside Ford Class? nowhere. Perhaps even 4th series wont have EMALS... See its useless. Russia with current budget restrictions is very unlikely to build large CVN. And if in 15 years of so will be operational second might never come.

Investing billions $ equivalent into  ONE installation and 2-4 units undead   Yak-44 (that was cool  mockup BTW- plastic is fantastic) in such situation is a criminal negligibility in spending state funds.

No worries, all that electrical  tech is gonna be developed without wasting money on EMALS. Check FPI site, they work on electric planes including extreme STOL shuttles too

Tsavo Lion wrote:
They could have just 2 at the middle/rear, ducts in the front to balance it & smaller valve-controlled nozzles in the nose, tail, and wingtips to provide control at low airspeeds, just like on Harriers

can you imagine GB and LMFS reaction when Su-57 would be basis for VSTOL fighter?

They will have to eat their hat or a crow!

The fun is that Kuz has no offensive missiles anymore.

we already discussed that it will retain Granit CMs that now can also strike land targets. With them, it's a force multiplier & she can go in & out of the Black Sea as often as needed.

Tsavo Lion wrote:They will have to eat their hat or a crow!

The fun is that Kuz has no offensive missiles anymore.

we already discussed that it will retain Granit CMs that now can also strike land targets. With them, it's a force multiplier & she can go in & out of the Black Sea as often as needed.

This is not technical but questions of doctrine or philosophy. Do you consider airwing your first striking force or auxiliary one.  I dont believe that in Russian case large airwing is good idea. In every scenario you are outnumbered in the air by opponent forces.


For small, Syria like, applications auxiliary air wing can do the job. In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.  




And here something for LMFS and GarryB:      

http://www.ioaircraft.com/hypersonic/ranger.php

Ranger - 2 Passenger VTOL Hypersonic Aircraft

Ranger, is a new type of aircraft never conceived of before.  It originates from a single question, from a hedge fund.  Is it possible to build a hypersonic aircraft that is also able to take off and landing vertically. This question was pondered, concepted, and the answer was simple. Yes, yes it is.

again Putin is guilty?

In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.

Future Adm. K & TAKRs may be armed with them later, unless they start building pure CVNs with only defensive armaments.

@Gunship:

don't have the time or frankly any reason to answer all of the absurdities above. I am here to learn and share knowledge and facts, not cheap rhetoric, as I told you before. It is boring and I learn nothing useful from it.

BTW, this English lesson from you about the differences between feasible and feasibility was very funny. Please try to get your act together the next time you attempt schooling someone (this definition comes from the link provided by yourself...)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasible

1 Possible and practical to do easily or conveniently.
‘the Dutch have demonstrated that it is perfectly feasible to live below sea level’

2 Likely; probable.
‘the most feasible explanation’

And this is how you tried to prove me wrong:

GD wrote:First would be good to understand differences and nuances between English words feasibility and feasible.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasibility
The state or degree of being easily or conveniently done.
No, Su-57 could not be so easily navalized otherwise why to Invest in VSTOL?


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasible
feasible tho has also synonym realizable.
Yes navalization can be done.


You act as you dont understand this p'tite difference.


You dont want to notice facts. There is no decision to navalize Su-57k thus money thrown. In case of VSTOL decision was made and money granted.  
Technically achievable is not only Su-57k but also base on the moon. Ask Energia or Khrunichev  designers.

As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

don't have the time or frankly any reason to answer all of the absurdities above. I am here to learn and share knowledge and facts, not cheap rhetoric, as I told you before. It is boring and I learn nothing useful from it.

Then dont, It's not obligatory. From my side I must admit you presented really cool  3D art, albeit nothing really scientific nor engineering worthy. But positive is that you are willing to learn.  You are good 3d artist, perhaps it is worthy to compete high school physics course too?  Physics is really worth learning, trust  me      

As a summary: please stop to the rest of us

we LMFS ? how many  all of LMSFes are there

Tsavo Lion wrote:

In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.

Future Adm. K & TAKRs may be armed with them later, unless they start building pure CVNs with only defensive armaments.

I guess this would be depending on which doctrine wins. I just am afraid that full grown CSGs are not really good solution for Russia in foreseeable future. Look ad UK and France. Their forces are modest with this regards. 40-70ktons. 36 fighters max.

In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

Thus I think their usage (in next 10-20 years) Russians should focus on hypersonic missiles, will they be airborne or seaborne this is another question. To ensure AEW + fighters to naval strikes 60-70 airwing is not really needed. GZURs should be light so VSTOL not VSTOL thy can carry 1-2 , so squadron can deliver salvo 12 GZURs with range 1,500kms.


AEW drone/Chopper/Tiltrotor can ensure 250-450 km radar range for fleet grouping. Choppers can ensure strong ASW protection. Perhaps this is better option?

Besides SSNs &/ SSKs, 1-2 SSGNs armed with GZURs or Zircons can be included in a CBG too. They'll be protecting each other!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Besides SSNs &/SSKs, 1-2 SSGNs armed with GZURs or Zircons can be included in a CBG too. They'll protect each other!

True that the large CSGs is is more potent although also more expensive . Both to field and to maintain.

With today's Western ASW capabilities, those SSGNs will need surface escorts anyway, so they might as well use them in CBGs.

It was supposed to have AN-70 engines with max. power output of 14K horsepower (10,440 kW); with those it could be possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27

D-27 is made by Motor Sich in the Ukraine... I doubt they could make one now and they certainly would not sell any to Russia.

So, it was stressed & powerful enough for STOBAR. They were working on CAT just in case heavier fighters & other planes were going to be used later on Ulyanovsk class CVNs.

Yeah... Nah... at 40 tons it would be the heaviest aircraft operating from a carrier... that is even heavier than an Su-34 which has engines rather more powerful than the D-27s... and would have zero chance of getting airborne from a carrier.

They could have just 2 at the middle/rear, ducts in the front to balance it & smaller valve-controlled nozzles in the nose, tail, and wingtips to provide control at low airspeeds, just like on Harriers:

How big would those nozzles need to be to allow for the flow of air needed to keep such a large aircraft in the air... and you would still need puffer jets in the tail, wing tips and nose...

1) 1988 first flight of MG-29k

The Su-33 first flight was the year before in 1987.

2) 90s program frozen indefinitely, no more MoD funding

All funding for navy was frozen.

3) Su-33 as preferred fighter was built for Kuz

Su-33 was cheaper because it was a dumb Su-27 with AAMs but only dumb bomb and unguided rocket capacity, whereas the MiG-29K was fully multirole capable of using precision air to air and air to ground weapons... at the time the Russian Navy just wanted an interceptor fighter so they went with the plane that could carry more missiles further.

4) Indians in early 20 ordered 2 batches of MiG-29k

They also rejected the Mi-28 and Ka-52 for the Apache... go figure...

5) Su-33 was a solid redesign of MiG-33 and lines were closed and service life was till 2015 only

What? The Su-33 got a minor upgrade and is still just an air to air capable fighter, while the new further upgraded MiG-29KR is fully multirole with a further improvement in capabilities and performance.

6) Using running manufacturing lines RuN ordered 24 only MiG-29k. Delivery till 2015

With only one operational carrier why order more?

7) Short after MiG-29k were in use in RuN service life of Su-33 was extended till 2025

The Su-33s don't have that many hours on the clock...

8 ) One of Kuzbased MiGs was lost

One Kuz based Su-33 was also lost...

9) MoD in 2017 (last MiGs delivered in 2015) said that in 10 years MiGs will be obsolete. Started talking about new fighter.

Who said they were the last? They were never supposed to have MiGs in the first place because the Su-33 was supposed to be the aircraft of choice, yet here we are with MiGs as well.

10) in 2018 officially MoD stated that VSTOL program started in 2017

Just like the VSTOL programme that resulted in the Yak-36 that led to no practical aircraft... but that led to a new VSTOL programme that led to the Yak-38 which was a rather ordinary low performance aircraft, that led to the Yak-38M which in many ways was not much better... no radar, no decent armament, shorter range because of the more powerful engines, but no increase in speed and poor manouver performance... which led to a new VSTOL programme for the Yak-41 which ended up being cancelled because it was resulting in an aircraft with shorter range, lower flight speed, less payload, worse manouver performance than a MiG-33 that was pretty much already ready for service but refused because it was too expensive... yet still cheaper than the Yak-41 if you counted survival rate...

11) MiG wont be dead as they work on MiG-41 and fast drones

As well as MiG-35s for export to Egypt and India and domestic use... I suspect when the US imposes sanctions on Indonesia for buying Russian weapons they might drop their F-16s and buy MiG-35s instead...

After 30 years failure story with MiG-29k and MiG-35 indeed military should be prudent in wasting money.

It would only be a waste of money if you had nothing to show for it at the end... when they have made 250 MiG-35s they will have value for their money invested...

The difference is that US can potentially install it on 11 CVNs. + sell 12 th +13th to France.

All they have to do is get it to work properly and they will be smiling...

EMALS of course can be beneficial when you build in many instances.

EMAL technology could be used to greatly extend the firing range of various artillery systems, not to mention rail transport and experience and work with electrical systems...

Remember army and navy status in 2008? Since 2013 USA aggression against Russia in Ukraine geopolitical situation made Russia to speed up all things that were in "background".

Yeah... the fact that there is serious hostility coming from the US wont stop because Russia is pissing away money on VSTOL aircraft...

(2) VSTOL decision was made later in 2018. 10 years later.

What makes you think the decision is related to anything except one department wanting to gain funding... it is like WIG aircraft... a dead end... for VSTOL aircraft they never achieve what they claim to offer... just like WIG aircraft have to fly at low altitude which makes jet engines inefficient and the aircraft slow.

(3) Helicopters or any virtual lift system yes. Especially with airborne Hermes they can have ~200km range.

Ship launched cruise missiles could have a 4,000km range...

(4) Kuz is one and cannot be in 4 places in same time. Not to mention Arctic. Kuz needs new fighters too. And max 15 years more.

The Russian navy is not big enough to support 4 independent operations at one time either, and the Arctic will be full of unsinkable land air bases.

A naval version of Su-57 will be vastly more capable than any alternative VSTOL model and if that is too expensive then the equivalent Su-35 model with the new PAK FA engines is about as good as it will get in the 2030s.

I dunno whether they would decide to use many smaller ships or less bigger. Less bigger has little value for Russia since one in Arctic, second in pacific and third? oh no no third can afford.

They are not going to be able to afford four carrier groups... the carrier support vessels cost more than the carrier so if you save with smaller carriers you end up spending more with multiple extra carrier support vessels not to mention the land based support infrastructure each carrier group needs.

the Pacific fleet will have a carrier group and the northern fleet will likely get one and the K might eventually be based in Syria for the black sea fleet and operations in the med...

yo yo bro,wake up. Harpoons, Yak-41 you are still in 80s. Russian CV earliest will be 2030. Then USN can use at least of JASSM-XR mutation (1,600km range) or hypersonic SM-3 mutation ? (2,500km range) . Not to mention 10x more fighters.

The Russians have Onyx in service right now and the USN has Harpoon... by 2030 SATAN II will make all US carriers obsolete for the purposes of WWIII so there is no point in your childish dick measuring contests... Russian carriers can be for promoting Russian interests and ensuring Russian access to their global trade opportunities...

Because Kuz wasnt' built as CV but TAKR. The fun is that Kuz has no offensive missiles anymore . But this didnt not yield find increase of r hangar size.

DUH... a TAKR with its missiles removed becomes a CV...

So where exactly is used US EMALS tech outside Ford Class? nowhere.

Maybe when they get it right they might use it elsewhere, but again who cares what the USN does... I don't give a shit and am seriously suspicious of your fan love of the USN and everything they do...

Perhaps even 4th series wont have EMALS... See its useless.

Of course... they will make wishes for their F-18s and F-35s to get airborne...

Russia with current budget restrictions is very unlikely to build large CVN. And if in 15 years of so will be operational second might never come.

So why waste money on VSTOL, they have zero use except from a decent sized carrier... look at how tight the British are and their replacement for the Hermes VSTOL carrier is a much bigger carrier... and they can't afford it either.... except they seem to.

Investing billions $ equivalent into ONE installation and 2-4 units undead Yak-44 (that was cool mockup BTW- plastic is fantastic) in such situation is a criminal negligibility in spending state funds.

They aren't making helicopter carriers so that means the VSTOL fighter will operate from perhaps one CVN... talk about a crime against nature... they would be better off just making corvettes and being Americas bitch.

No worries, all that electrical tech is gonna be developed without wasting money on EMALS.

Hahahaha... you think they might develop the same technology for free by accident... are you taking the wee wee...

can you imagine GB and LMFS reaction when Su-57 would be basis for VSTOL fighter?

Probably as shocked as if you actually started making sense on this thread or any other thread related to the Russian navy, but it is all just a big joke to you and you are just here for giggles.

This is not technical but questions of doctrine or philosophy. Do you consider airwing your first striking force or auxiliary one. I dont believe that in Russian case large airwing is good idea. In every scenario you are outnumbered in the air by opponent forces.

Granit is 7 tons and enormous... much smaller newer missiles could greatly increase the flight range at much higher speeds... and few opposition air wings can operate that far from their carriers without inflight refuelling support... support that would be sitting ducks to a long range shot with an R-37M that is reportedly compatible with all 4+ and 5th generation Russian fighters.

These foreign carriers all seem so well protected, yet Russian carriers are so vulnerable... yet the evidence is currently the opposite.

And the best attack component of a US carrier group is its air power and the best way to fight air power is with a mix of ground/surface defences and air power.

But lets not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.

But what launches those missiles?

And when away from Russian air bases what protects those launch platforms?

Ranger, is a new type of aircraft never conceived of before. It originates from a single question, from a hedge fund. Is it possible to build a hypersonic aircraft that is also able to take off and landing vertically. This question was pondered, concepted, and the answer was simple. Yes, yes it is.

Yeah... ignore aviation experts.... ask a hedge fund manager, why not get your dentist to write up the proposal and spend a billion on it right now...

Physics is really worth learning, trust me

Did your hedge fund manager tell you that or your crack supplier?

I guess this would be depending on which doctrine wins. I just am afraid that full grown CSGs are not really good solution for Russia in foreseeable future. Look ad UK and France. Their forces are modest with this regards. 40-70ktons. 36 fighters max.

Of course the best way forward for Russia is to copy the UK and France...

In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

Describe what threat they represent to Russia... all 11 of their carrier groups could not together stop one Kinzhal missile let alone more, so what sort of performance can we expect from them in real combat?

Which approaches to Russian territory could they try that would allow them to attack Russia from a position of safety... they certainly could not enter the Black Sea and any attack in the baltic would fail, and the northern fleet would be pretty safe too... Pacific fleet? The S-400s will keep them away from land and the Kinzhals will push them further back... they would be pretty useless against Russia.

But they don't have them for Russia... they never did, it was all about other countries...

To ensure AEW + fighters to naval strikes 60-70 airwing is not really needed. GZURs should be light so VSTOL not VSTOL thy can carry 1-2 , so squadron can deliver salvo 12 GZURs with range 1,500kms.

So the MiG-29KR and Su-33 are obsolete but this new as yet not invented VSTOL fighter is already carrying 1.6 ton plus missiles...

With today's Western ASW capabilities, those SSGNs will need surface escorts anyway, so they might as well use them in CBGs.

Well why not just do away with everything... a large airship with nuclear power and enormous 300m long radar arrays of various frequency ranges that could detect anything at 1,000s of kms range, could operate with standard cargo ships equipped as arsenal ships with thousands of ready to fire missiles of every type including anti ship, anti sub, land attack and surface to air and surface to space missiles.

You could operate helos and drones from them... you don't need fighters apparently because no fighter you could carry could take on the entire might of the US and EU and China and India and Israel combined, so just don't bother... fit BULAVA and Sarmat missiles too, and of course attach lots of sonar to the ships, which together with the radars on the airship will give you full situational awareness of any threats out to extended ranges...

Fuck it... why even bother with that... just withdraw from new START and make thousands of ICBMs and Nuke the US and every other country on the planet about 50 times and problem is solved.

As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

Reminds me of that joke about the man who searched and he searched for Miss Right, and he found her... but it wasn't until he married her that he found out her first name was Always...