Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Gibraltar wrote:Operativity and available payload of vtols are still very questionable argument. Yes they should still have yak-141 blueprints in some dusty archive but revive it today would be a Jurassic Park kind of experiment.

Supercarriers can use a variety of way cheaper and capable aircrafts and they could start building them tomorrow.

Vtols other time and money wasted to design and develop technology they don't have. Think these aircraft would be delivered (dreaming) in 10 years they still would'nt have a truly blue water ship to carry them over far war theatres. Or maybe you think to stuff with these crafts a conventional carrier propelled by gas turbines they actually don't know how to build, or maybe a modernized Kuznetsov? Seems a paradox but they have ready to fit modern nuclear powertrain (from Arktika icebreakers) but no reliable gas turbines even for frigate-size ship. In any case, we say supercarriers but they intend (and I agree with their concept) as heavy aircraft carrying cruisers. So a supercarrier shape ship with cruiser level defence/attack systems just under her deck sailing with a slim escort fleet.

Vtol seems a weird idea to me, at least.

So, to have 1 in the NF & 1 in PacF with 3 escorts (to be modest) each ready to deploy 24/7, they'll need at least 6 CVNs & 18(!) [surface] escorts total.
You seem to be one of very few thinking with budget restriction categories here... I'm glad to see it

Seems a paradox but they have ready to fit modern nuclear powertrain (from Arktika icebreakers) but no reliable gas turbines even for frigate-size ship.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Seems a paradox but they have ready to fit modern nuclear powertrain (from Arktika icebreakers) but no reliable gas turbines even for frigate-size ship.

Before its collapse, the USSR produced them & nuclear reactors. Now, Ukraine still produces gas turbines for ships; Russia reportedly just recently set up their production. History & geography lesson for u!

Lesson from F-35 is that when you design different variations of same aircraft they should have 80% commonality not 80% difference

They knew that the RN had SSNs, strategic bombers & tankers but still invaded

M. Thatcher was known as the "Iron Lady" since 1975, so her gender had nothing to do with their decision to invade:

They just mistakenly figured that the Brits wouldn't consider it worth the trouble to retake them.

They already have a floating NPP & may need such bases in the absence of CVNs, esp. in remote seas.

They would outperform CBGs & could have big AD/EW airships u like so much.

no, please focus when reading. I was saying that was built to have longer reach then any of AGTMs. BTW Hermes to be used by any platform (land, airborne and shipborne) and significantly better destruction power. than any AGTM. Yet to be relatively cheap comparing to missiles like Kalibr or Iskander. Remember this thread about small ballistic missile for Russian army? Check Hermes.

BTW you mentioned couple of times vision where Russian CVN carry UKSKs. Then they wont be CVNs anymore but TAKRs.

And you know better Russian reality and needs then him? yo yo bro facts over emotions

Well, you dont have to believe in Energy–maneuverability theory, but real world facts prove that all Russian fighter platforms are all highly maneuverable. V-44 would not fit to the picture. Especially that RuN wants to have platforms that replace MiG/Su as deck aviation

Facts: below 40% serviceability of MiG-29k in India and already extended Su-33 service life by 10y till 2025, thus not likely.
Instead RuN (and more importantly MoD) gives green light for new platform.

Facts say: In 30's West wants to start operating FAXX and Tempest. Latest in 40' new Ger/FR fighter comes. As for Russia: why it would be Vgen and not VI gen? program started almost 20 years after PAK-FA's one. Ru MoD so far has been investing in longer term future then next 5-10years. that's why all that upgrades of old tech instead not to overspend on legacy designs but develop new ones.

As for Su-57k the only poof I've found so far is LMFS and your posts. But i'd prefer to see this in any MoD officials first before anybody can consider it credible. Naval Su-57 is an option only after program is officially announced.

What do you mean directly up?! R-37 is flying with hypersonic speed, and regardless if its dimensions has big big IR signature. Temp is from adiabatic air compression not engine. It is like you are tracking with IR senors exhaust from jet engine.

Since you and Russian MoD disagree on this topic only one party can be right here. You are alone (+ LMFS here as anti-VSTOL ronins lol! lol! lol! ) and Russia side has support from MoD, RuN + OAK + all tech institutes and universities.

Russian MoD opened programme for VSTOL platform to replace legacy fighters.

AFAIR same as Russian MoD requires agility from all platforms (again Sukhoi R&D chief designer in Su-57 thread) as in Russian MoD approach "close fight" is alive and kicking.

a) yes VSTOL brings value to the table
b) according to MoD requirements every fighter should be a maneuverable platform
c) will it be VSTOL? or xSTOL well we are yet to see outcome

As for deck fighters Su-57k makes little sense since they started VSTOL program, unless there will be large commonality between Su-57 and VSTOL one...

flying sources so far didnt work but Coanda effect is actively used now By FPI and NASA alike to create... "very short" STOL, with distributed propulsion.

1) Will VSTOL be using "80%" commonality with Su-57? keeping its manuverbility.

2) Will it be not V but extreme STOL? say like 30-50 meters takeoff strip? They can achieve it by Coanda Effect and extra engines "cheating " wings to increase lift force?

There are no existing examples. There is one existing example namely F-35. So no, this is not good question until there is another example.

So, to have 1 in the NF & 1 in PacF with 3 escorts (to be modest) each ready to deploy 24/7, they'll need at least 6 CVNs & 18(!) [surface] escorts total.
You seem to be one of very few thinking with budget restriction categories here... I'm glad to see it

Tsavo Lion wrote:The had 120m takeoff run, less than flight deck lengths of Adm.K (305m) & future TAKRs or CVNs. So a few of them could be carried on UDKs/LHDs (257m).

They should have made two different aircraft... one as a 5th gen stealthy harrier replacement for the USMC and a 5th gen stealthy F-16/et al replacement.

Known to the voters as such... to Argentina she just appears to be a woman.

That is to help open up the arctic...They wont be using them as substitute CVNs.

The existing example is enough to show developing an aircraft for STOVL compromises the shape and design..

..even a corvette sized vessel would be a useful addition to a carrier group..

GarryB wrote:

BTW you mentioned couple of times vision where Russian CVN carry  UKSKs. Then they wont be CVNs anymore but TAKRs.  

They will be nuclear powered aircraft carriers... give it any faggy code you like.

GB wrote:

And you know better Russian reality and needs then him? yo yo bro facts over emotions

Of course... different developers have different products and those products get into production or die quietly depending upon how much attention that developer can get for their baby.
Some developer has gotten the ear of Putin so VSTOL is getting money, but the problems are enormous and the chance of getting something worth the effort are low but you keep cheering on this gamble to develop something inferior to what they have right now.

Then Putin is one gullible toad and only you are lone whistleblower see reality. How touchy, I'd say Hollywood High Noon style,  but no, not realistic. Let's  keep facts.

1) MiG-35 sized fighter with 2x AL-41 izd 30 has T/MTOW ~ 1,5 and you say it i impossible to create one? wow.

2) F-35 is a product of different doctrine and is not bad fighter just no optimized for Russian approach. and surely overpriced      

3) no, Russians dont have anything now besides 50 yo platforms.

GB wrote:

Well, you dont have to believe in Energy–maneuverability theory, but real world facts prove that all Russian fighter platforms are all highly maneuverable.  V-44 would not fit to the picture.  Especially that RuN wants to have platforms that replace MiG/Su as deck aviation

You dont get it do you.

They didnt' design the Mig and the Su for the carrier... they adapted them. What they wanted was an air defence aircraft... not to out manouver an enemy fighter.., but to shoot it down at medium range.... 99% of targets will be incoming anti ship missiles... in the very rare occasion that enemy aircraft appear their job is to shoot down anything they launch and the platforms themselves but they will try to do that before getting into a dog fight.

GB wrote:

Facts: below 40% serviceability of MiG-29k in  India and  already extended Su-33 service life by 10y till 2025,  thus not likely.  
Instead RuN (and more importantly MoD) gives green light for new platform.

If you have evidence of low serviceability for the MiG-29KR in Russian service then you might have a point, but you don't on both counts.

GB wrote:

]Facts say:  In 30's West wants to start operating  FAXX and Tempest. Latest in 40' new Ger/FR fighter comes.  As for  Russia: why it would be Vgen and not VI gen? program started almost 20 years after PAK-FA's one. Ru MoD so far has been investing in longer term future then next 5-10years. that's why all that upgrades of old tech instead not to overspend on legacy designs but develop new ones.

By all means look at new technology and work on new systems but at the end of the day a current system with upgrades is going to be better than some paper thing that never gets made because some other new technology is just around the corner to render it obsolete.

These aircraft are not supposed to invade the US, they don't have to take on NATO on their own, they are supposed to defend the ships the carrier they are based on is operating with.... nothing else.

GB wrote:

As for Su-57k the only poof I've found so far is LMFS and your posts. But i'd prefer to see this in any MoD officials first before anybody can consider it credible. Naval Su-57 is an option only after program is officially announced.  

It is the only platform worth considering.

DAT's is very interesting idea.   PAK-FA as platform Armata like. Where VSTOL would be naval variant of platform. With 2x Izd 30 T/W is already 1,36 snd T/MTOW 1,1. SO yes. VSTOL is possible      

GB wrote:

What do you mean directly up?! R-37 is flying with hypersonic speed, and regardless if its dimensions has big big IR signature. Temp is from adiabatic air compression not engine. It is like you are tracking with IR senors exhaust from jet engine.  

Lofted trajectory flight profile.  For most of its flight it will be through very very thin air...

GB wrote:

Since you and Russian MoD disagree on this topic only one party can be right here.  You are alone (+ LMFS here as anti-VSTOL ronins  lol!  lol!  lol! ) and Russia side has support from MoD, RuN + OAK + all tech institutes and universities.

Ahhh, Mr black and white man... it couldn't possibly be anything different either A or B... so if the MoD develop this VSTOL and it turns into an expensive stinker then they are right... but if they don't put it into service then I am right... or is everyone wrong?

They tried to create a VSTOL fighter before and failed... what new technology do you think will make it easier to get it right, or were the people working on the Yak-41 just idiots?

GB wrote:

a)  yes  VSTOL brings value to the table
b)  according to MoD requirements every fighter should be a maneuverable platform
c) will it be VSTOL? or xSTOL  well we are yet to see outcome

A) VSTOL brings cost and poor performance to the table with one trick that it really can't use except on custom designed expensive platforms with heat resistant tiles.

GB wrote:VSTOL fighters are rather less manouverable than conventional fighters. Or will it just be cancelled...

GB wrote:

As for deck fighters Su-57k makes little sense since they started  VSTOL program, unless there will be large commonality between Su-57 and VSTOL one...

There will be one fundamental difference between the naval Su-57 and the VSTOL programme... the VSTOL programme will be cut.

meh Su-57k will be ... VSTOL        T/W is already 1,36

GB wrote:

1) Will VSTOL be using "80%" commonality with Su-57? keeping its manuverbility.

Not possible.

For it to take off either the thrust from the main engines needs to be at or near the cg, or if it is at the rear then there needs to be an equal downward thrust at the front so the lift is balanced around the cg. You would also need to add puffer jets at the wing tips, nose, and tail for stability in the hover...

GB wrote:

2) Will it be not V but extreme STOL? say like 30-50 meters takeoff strip?  They can achieve it by Coanda Effect and extra engines "cheating " wings to increase lift force?

You mean like dead weight lift engines?

GB wrote:

There are no existing examples. There is one existing example namely F-35. So no, this is not good question until there  is another example.

The existing example is enough to show developing an aircraft for STOVL compromises the shape and design and converts what could have been a 5th gen stealthy F-16 into a dog

GB wrote:

So, to have 1 in the NF & 1 in PacF with 3 escorts (to be modest) each ready to deploy 24/7, they'll need at least 6 CVNs & 18(!) [surface] escorts total.
You seem to be one of very few thinking with budget restriction categories here... I'm glad to see it

With the Redut SAM system being adapted to carry 400km range 35km altitude SAMs I would say even a corvette sized vessel would be a useful addition to a carrier group and that future destroyer and cruiser types will have vastly more fire power than previous versions... so carrier support could consist of a cruiser and 3-4 destroyers,  plus  2-4  longer range corvettes specially designed for the role...

Their new ships are all multirole and seriously capable of defending themselves and others... it is likely that a collection of any 5-8 ships could be attached to a carrier to operate as collective security.

They will be nuclear powered aircraft carriers... give it any faggy code you like.
well this is actually an official Russian military code. CVNs dont carry any offensive equipment.

Forget the hypothetical Su-57K; Yak-43 STOL & Yak-41 STOVL shapes r not that different from each other:

In closed seas like the Med. or Red perhaps, but elsewhere these tin cans will get the whole crew seasick & "on bed rest". They'll also need to be supplied more often, in all kinds of weather, risking casualties.

well this is actually an official Russian military code. CVNs dont carry any offensive equipment. Have you seen one? Neither did I.

1) MiG-35 sized fighter with 2x AL-41 izd 30 has T/MTOW ~ 1,5 and you say it i impossible to create one? wow.

2) F-35 is a product of different doctrine and is not bad fighter just no optimized for Russian approach. and surely overpriced

3) no, Russians dont have anything now besides 50 yo platforms.

Russian evidence from Syria is 4 carrier based and one lost in Syria. And 1 not able to flight in srian campaign too. So 25 % of accidents and 25% of serviceability. Even worse result.
50% available.

Almost good. Almost makes huge difference tho. . Armata is a new platform but you look look at T-72 . It is old but still upgraded is adequate. Simply till 2030s West will not field anything new really. But then T-72 can be replaced by new platform. Same here with fighters.

Fighters according to Sukhoi R&D managers are platforms for 30-50years. In west is the same process now. MiG-29 (F-16 alike) was designed in 70s and first flight in 1976. so in 2030s it is half a century old. Its time just is gone.

DAT's is very interesting idea. PAK-FA as platform Armata like. Where VSTOL would be naval variant of platform. With 2x Izd 30 T/W is already 1,36 snd T/MTOW 1,1. SO yes. VSTOL is possible

and F-35 DAS sohould see it from much more than 100km away. In fact they claim it can see moment of launching hundreds of kms (according ot manufacturer). DAS is supposed to be coupled with engine (and TVC, flaps) so it can calculate time to make an escape maneuvers. How it will work it is another story.

As for Yak not at all! Yak-41 couldn't use today's and future computers, materials and TVC tech.

Last unrealized version was to be on pair with MiG-29k. With experiences gained it was hue chance to achieve this.

so you've drinked only Fosters and are sure that all beers taste like a piss? No they wont

There r 2 opinions among the Russians how future a/c carriers should be profiled. The 1st is US-style CVN, but smaller, with no defensive armament except CIWS, ADMs, & 50 cal. or the like MGs; the 2nd is TAKR. Since they r not pursuing 1-1 parity & their AWs won't be bombing land-locked 3rd World countries, the 2nd & now traditional option is most likely to be selected.
They'll be hybrids aka "aviation carrying ships" with offensive & defensive equipment, unlike CVNs with only fighter-bombers, UCAVs & tiltrotors/helos with Marines &/ SF for offense.

If we forget the hypothetical then we have to forget the Yak-43 which only exists on paper...

..getting fired at from 900m away by Kalashnikovs..

GarryB wrote:

Forget the hypothetical Su-57K; Yak-43 STOL & Yak-41 STOVL shapes r not that different from each other:

If we forget the hypothetical then we have to forget the Yak-43 which only exists on paper...

GB wrote:

well this is actually an official Russian military code. CVNs dont carry any offensive equipment. Have you seen one?  Neither did  I.

The definition of an aircraft carrier is different for Russia than for the west... CVN is trying to be western... just like the west calls their armed troop carriers as IFVs instead of BMPs

GB wrote:

1) MiG-35 sized fighter with 2x AL-41 izd 30 has T/MTOW ~ 1,5 and you say it i impossible to create one? wow.

It is not just the power... it is the location... and it is the requirement to take off vertically or land vertically that limits payload capacity and operational performance.

GB wrote:

2) F-35 is a product of different doctrine and is not bad fighter just no optimized for Russian approach. and surely overpriced

It is a strike aircraft which lacks range.

GB wrote:

3) no, Russians dont have anything now besides 50 yo platforms.

And if they keep pissing money away on dead end concepts that have already been tried and have failed they wont get anything new.
Fortunately they will get CTOBAR Su-57s which will do the job...

GB wrote:[quoteRussian evidence from Syria is 4 carrier based and one lost in Syria. And  1 not able to flight in srian campaign too. So 25 % of accidents and 25% of serviceability. Even worse result.50% available.

GB wrote:

Almost good. Almost makes huge difference tho. . Armata is a new platform but you look look at T-72 . It is old but still upgraded is adequate. Simply till 2030s West will not field anything new really. But then T-72 can be replaced by new platform. Same here with fighters.

But then using that logic, if they don't need new naval fighters between now and the early 2030s when any new carrier will be ready then they don't need any carriers... scrap the K and just buy more Su-57s and accept that Russian ships are on their own outside of the range of Russian land based air support...

Fighters according to Sukhoi R&D managers are platforms for 30-50years. In west is the same process now. MiG-29 (F-16 alike) was designed in 70s and first flight in 1976. so in 2030s it is half a century old. Its time just is gone.

GB wrote:

DAT's is very interesting idea.   PAK-FA as platform Armata like. Where VSTOL would be naval variant of platform. With 2x Izd 30 T/W is already 1,36 snd T/MTOW 1,1. SO yes. VSTOL is possible

All its useful payload would be wasted with extra lifting systems to allow VTO or landing so no... not a good idea.

GB wrote:

and F-35 DAS sohould see it  from much more than 100km away. In fact they claim it can see moment of launching hundreds of kms (according ot manufacturer). DAS is supposed to be coupled with engine (and TVC, flaps) so it can calculate time to make an escape maneuvers. How it will work it is another story.

They also say it has a weapon capacity of 8 tons... hahahahahaha.

GB wrote:

As for Yak not at all!  Yak-41 couldn't use today's and future computers, materials and TVC tech.

The problems of the Yak-41 wont be fixed with new composite materials and new engines and lighter avionics... all those things could be applied to a more conventional aircraft in a cheaper simpler airframe offering better performance...

GB wrote:

There r 2 opinions among the Russians how future a/c carriers should be profiled. The 1st is US-style CVN, but smaller, with no defensive armament except CIWS, ADMs, & 50 cal. or the like MGs; the 2nd is TAKR. Since they r not pursuing 1-1 parity & their AWs won't be bombing land-locked 3rd World countries, the 2nd & now traditional option is most likely to be selected.
They'll be hybrids aka "aviation carrying ships" with offensive & defensive equipment, unlike CVNs with only fighter-bombers, UCAVs & tiltrotors/helos with Marines &/ SF for offense.

Russians/Soviets have never built an aircraft carrier that is not able to defend itself against air or sea attack... they wont start now.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The max. range is 1000m (PKM 1,500m), but how accurate is that fire?

If they r both hypothetical at this point, then both have at least 50-50 chance on TAKR/CVN; the Yak-43 or a new STOVL has a lot more than that on much sooner to be built UDK/LHDs.

The max. range is 1000m (PKM 1,500m), but how accurate is that fire?

Korean project of V gen fighter. Future. Similar hypothetical form, Koreans didn't forget?!

and again Yak-41M (final line of Yak-141) unlike MiG-29k this could have worked. (Gordon, Soviet Jumjets p 121)

Not to my knowledge. In Russian
aircraft carrier: авианосец (avianosec)
aircraft cruiser: ТАКР (тяжелый авианесущий крейсер- heavyaircraft carrying cruiser)

BTW BMP -boyevaya mashina pekhoty - literally: fighting vehicle of infantry

Wow interesting but not confirmed by real world's evidence. Russian adapted fighters dons look like having large payload, for AA mission is is like Yak-141 one. Guess why.
BTW Su-33 ~300 lower for deck variant - where Su-33 has stronger engines!!! Weight is increased by 2 tons.

You seem to be a fan of max payload and range. But also critisize strike aircrafts.

There is no fighter which can have large apyload high maneuverability and range in sam etime.

yo yo genius this strike fighter you should like since has apuloaf and range better then MiG-29k. It also can kill MiG-29 without much problems. Rest of parameters check below. Yes you can deny real world's evidence as much as you want but this wont affect facts. After wiki.

..............................range......................payload...........................overload
F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

yo yo rear-admiral, dead end is only MiG-29 here. And good it ends. Su-57 why not in VSTOL version like Su-27->Su-33

yes, always something is faulty, only not 34% serviceable fighter. And since you have deeper insight than Russian admiralty - what is solution is such case?

wow so in 2020s carrier is needed according to and in 2030s not

Russian ships will be covered by newly designed VSTOL

Dont be sucha drama queen

BTW there wont be any carrier before 2030s unless they magically start building latest in 2020.

So again you are better fighter designer than Sukhoi one? wow NASA wants to know your address

well so what should be useful load for naval fighter according to you ?

So Russian AF says F-35 is shit? did you hear any military claiming this ?

True ! They called them TAKRs and populated with VSTOL

GB seems to have Boer Wars view: volley fire becuse AK-47 was actually for fighting in~300m range.

For MiG-29K, the site of UAC has info too, which is identical to the one from MiG.

GarryB wrote:

..............................range......................payload...........................overload
F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

Oh, its numbers are bigger it must be a better aircraft... because if there is one thing that real combat has taught us is that the plane that can pull the highest gs always wins... amusing you call me a genius moron.

The naval aircraft has a folding wing, but also a bigger wing, and larger control surfaces and wing flaps to allow lower landing and takeoff speeds... and of course a tail hook with no parachute.

In the MiG-35 the design is fully unified between land and sea based models.

I rather suspect the Su-57 will be the same.

Before it was cancelled it was intended to operate the Yak-41 from the K... they had already done the Kiev class small carrier with VSTOL fighters and knew it was limited and rubbish... basically a glorified helicopter carrier.

Yak-41 if it had been successful would likely have also been used on both the kuznetsov and the larger replacement ships... its possible best feature would be the ability to get airborne rapidly and launch missiles at incoming low flying targets... but that will be something the Ka-52K will be able to do too so it makes a jet fighter able to do that less useful...

Close in targets will already be engaged with ship based CIWSs anyway... you want fixed wing aircraft to engage the targets as far away from the ships as possible so speed and flight range are important, but an all AAM payload is not that heavy so max payload is irrelevant except when used as a tanker aircraft... but a tanker variation of an AWACS platform would be simpler and cheaper.

Note the Americans have dropped their S-3 tankers and use Hornets instead... more expensive and less efficient.

..the Russian navy plans have been for a slightly larger carrier than the K, for which the Su-33 was intended, so a naval Su-57 would be ideal.

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:

..............................range......................payload...........................overload
F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

Oh, its numbers are bigger it must be a better aircraft... because if there is one thing that real combat has taught us is that the plane that can pull the highest gs always wins... amusing you call me a genius moron.

Numbers above are screwed up, in fact F-35C is rated 7.5 g (Lockheed data) against 8 g of the MiG (MiG data). Payload values are swapped above.

LMFS wrote: In any case I guess performance matters, if not all navies would be using Harriers instead of bothering with STOBAR and CATOBAR issues.

LMFS wrote:

In the MiG-35 the design is fully unified between land and sea based models.

Have no certainty with the -35 but even in K/M models there is no difference in any disclosed parameter that allows to think they are so apart. Looking normal TOW, MTOW, range and payload in does not seem there is a big difference in empty weight between them.

I rather suspect the Su-57 will be the same.

LMFS wrote:

Before it was cancelled it was intended to operate the Yak-41 from the K... they had already done the Kiev class small carrier with VSTOL fighters and knew it was limited and rubbish... basically a glorified helicopter carrier.

Yeah, they had planed small carriers with STOVL....but also bigger ones with catapults and AWACS and heavy fighters. Have not seen any disruptive statements that lead me to think they plan very differently for the future to be honest. Technologies for STOVL (FCS, engine thrust and materials) have evolved quite a bit to allow better performance, but the same has happened for STOBAR planes and ship technology in the sense of simplifying operations. Not clear for me that the picture has changed so much in terms of what option offers more performance.

LMFS wrote: {} you want fixed wing aircraft to engage the targets as far away from the ships as possible so speed and flight range are important, but an all AAM payload is not that heavy {}

LMFS wrote: so max payload is irrelevant except when used as a tanker aircraft... [/b]but a tanker variation of an AWACS platform would be simpler and cheaper.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..the Russian navy plans have been for a slightly larger carrier than the K, for which the Su-33 was intended, so a naval Su-57 would be ideal.

That's why IMO, it would be more feasible to restart the Su-33"M" low rate production,
+++

The Su-57s r badly needed by the AF, "hand to mouth" so to speak, & the more Su-57Ks r produced, the less the AF will get. Also, they'll be more expensive to replace in a more risky naval environment.

In case of su-33k restarting, it is expensive for outdated platform?

GarryB wrote:

There is no fighter which can have large apyload high maneuverability and range in sam etime.

Carrier based fighters don't need high manouverability over their airfield... that would be surrounded by ships all equipped with state of the art air defence missiles and sensor systems... what they need is a decent (ie small) payload of AAMs and enough fuel to reach out and touch targets at a distance over the horizon where the ships are not best equipped to deal.

wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role      
Kudos ot myself      

GB wrote:

BTW Su-33 ~300 lower for deck variant - where Su-33 has stronger engines!!! Weight is increased by 2 tons.

well Duh... I keep saying as much when you claim the F-35 can carry 8 ton payloads of weapons, except that reduced weight vertical take offs means reduced fuel and also reduced flight range... which would be much more of a problem than not being able to carry more than 2 tons of AAMs.

GB wrote:

and again Yak-41M (final line of Yak-141) unlike MiG-29k this could have worked.  (Gordon, Soviet Jumjets p 121)

Well actually the MiG-29K did work and was the aircraft actually designed to operate from the Kuznetsov... the Su-33 was intended to operate from a slightly larger replacement ship... the type the Russian Navy still wants, which would make the Su-57K ideal for the job.

GB wrote:

Korean project of V gen fighter. Future. Similar hypothetical  form, Koreans didn't forget?!

Three pictures with only one VSTOL aircraft among them...

GB wrote:... they don't even know how powerful the engine is going to be...

GB wrote:It shows capability in technical drawing and design and making plastic models... but really does not show anything regarding ability to actually develop and manufacture and put into service a 5th gen fighter.

GB wrote:The Yak-41M didn't work and will never get the chance to except in video games of the 80s and 90s.

GB wrote:

Not to my knowledge. In Russian
aircraft carrier: авианосец (avianosec)
aircraft cruiser:   ТАКР  (тяжелый авианесущий крейсер- heavyaircraft carrying cruiser)

Exactly... a large ship is a cruiser and the Kuznetsov and Kiev and other carriers are therefore types of cruisers... aircraft carrying cruisers.

GB wrote: Before there was a Soviet Cosmonaut everyone used the term to describe a space traveller because that is literally what it means, but the Americans have to be different so they call their space men Astronauts.... star travellers... when of course our sun is the only star they will get anywhere near.

They landed on  Moon so something with moon should be better. Like Moonshiners?      

GB wrote:

You seem to be a fan of max payload and range. But also critisize strike aircrafts.

Because missiles from ships and subs make rather more sense than risking a pilot to attack a ground target... I don't give a shit about max payload... 2.5 tons would be plenty of AAMs and jammer pods, but look at the problems the Americans have with their navy... those huge expensive carriers and a puny fighter with a pathetic range... they were better off with Tomcats.

GB wrote:

yo yo genius this strike fighter you should like since has apuloaf and range better then MiG-29k. It also can kill MiG-29 without much problems. Rest of parameters check below. Yes you can deny real world's evidence as much as you want but this wont affect facts.  After wiki.

..............................range......................payload...........................overload
F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

How about some racist asian slurs to follow up with?

GB wrote:

So Russian AF says F-35 is shit? did you hear any military claiming this ?

Why would they? Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake...

GB wrote:

True ! They called them TAKRs and populated with VSTOL

Actually the ones they have in service or refurbished themselves use MiG-29KRs and Su-33s only.... the only VSTOLs are helicopters on Russian ships.

GB wrote:Before it was cancelled it was intended to operate the Yak-41 from the K... they had already done the Kiev class small carrier with VSTOL fighters and knew it was limited and rubbish... basically a glorified helicopter carrier.

GB wrote:Close in targets will already be engaged with ship based CIWSs anyway... you want fixed wing aircraft to engage the targets as far away from the ships as possible so speed and flight range are important, but an all AAM payload is not that heavy so max payload is irrelevant except w.

Tsavo Lion wrote:F-35B stealth jets could operate on Japan’s flattop destroyers, study says
+++
South Korea is another country that took notice of the reports about Japan’s plan. In fact, shortly after Japan’s thinking became public reports emerged that Seoul was also considering refitting its helicopter destroyers to carry the F-35B. ..

Tsavo wrote:As mentioned before, Russia too could use STOVLs on her Kurils & Arctic coast/islands, saving on building & maintaining long airstrips.  

Tsavo wrote:

In case of su-33k restarting, it is expensive for outdated platform?

If nothing else replace them, it's not impossible. They r not that different from Su-30/-34 now in production. Those will be used for decades & the possible Su-33"M" won't be a huge burden with its parts commonality & pilot training savings. If needed, some Su-27/-30/-34 AF pilots could also be trained to fly them off the deck.  

That's why IMO, it would be more feasible to restart the Su-33"M" low rate production, concurrent with current Su-30/-34/-35 production. India &/ China may order some too, as they will operate STOBARs & have problems with MiG-29Ks/J-15s.

The Su-57s r badly needed by the AF, "hand to mouth" so to speak, & the more Su-57Ks r produced, the less the AF will get. Also, they'll be more expensive to replace in a more risky naval environment.

The VTOL capability is good to have when parts of a flight deck can't be used to launch & recover a/c. But STOL will be used most of the time, so less higher fuel consumption compared with VTOL won't be that relevant. They could have tilt rotor tankers to increase their range.

Modified AN-71/-72/-74s with shortened fuselage is also an option for AWACS & COD/ASW/tanker

Partially agreed. Although technically true, financially unlikely. Russian Navy unlikely can fund a separate platform only for deck AWACS/ tanker/ transport and I see so far no existing candidates for this.

As mentioned before, Russia too could use STOVLs on her Kurils & Arctic coast/islands, saving on building & maintaining long airstrips.

wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role russia russia russia
Kudos ot myself

Payload of F-35B (VSTOL one) is bigger than any of Russian STOBAR fighters at the moment. Range? really this 350 kilometers counts that much in fleet air defense missions?
In case of Yak well..

a) MiG-29k even after 25 years has never delivered much of its promises really:at most average performance, poor radar (cheek Indian claims), extremely low serviceability. And its maneuverability is on level of US F-35B, which was not built to maneuverability doctrine.

b) Russian navy preferred to extend life of Su-33 instead and invest in VSTOL instead of wasting money on MiG-29k/35

c) Su-33 was intended to operate from any Soviet carrier, same as Yak-141 and MiG-29k originally.

This one VSTOL was a Russian one, build to Russian doctrine (F-35 doesnt assume maneuverability yet has on level of MiG-29k) . Korean with canards you say? KFX-201? And below.
and if the canard equipped KFX is the one you are talking about.

So where is this bulkiness of VSTOL again

well Koreans were able to collect Aegis destroyers, build KAI T-50so why should't be able to build decent engine? with their level of funding and technical abilities? or just buy license on US on one.

Technically Su-57k is also in plastic only.

And MiG-35 in promises, since MiG hasn't been able not only to build to build any Vgen fighter but even to build a decent deck fighter.

Yak 41 did work, had never had a chance for funding tho.

well then you understand that adding more offensive armament is actually traded with smaller air wing. BTW in Soviet times Su-33 was only to be air superiority fighter. So no ship strike missions were foreseen. Anti ship missions were to be carried out by... 12 Granit missiles. Soviets also preferred missiles to anti ship operations as we can see.

Currently any fighter could use GZUR as tis weight should be ~1,600kg things can change but I still hope UKSKs wil be installed there.

They landed on Moon so something with moon should be better. Like Moonshiners?

Perhaps you didnt have a chance to notice but last 20 years of so so called stand off weapons has been developed.

BTW Yak-141 load was 2,600kg so glad we agree

There is no dog fighting anymore with radars with 250km range on stealth aircraft. And capable IRST systems. 17km vs 15,5? will this difference compensate what precisely? AA missiles work at last to 25km.

so you are a racist Asian? damn what's wrong with you boy

But with such funding it is only matter of relatively short time all flaws will be fixed.

KR is no magic of name - R stands worm Russian not better, actually Indian ones have better preference

a) Yak was never cancelled, read Russian sources. Was closed.

However with 20 MiG-29k virtually not used and Su-33 with service life till 2025 new fighter intro would not be really badly needed, before VSTOL one.