Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Given we need to rely on publicly available info and official quotes (sometimes apparently more than in common sense), the opinion can be defended, even when I don't agree.

They continue to upgrade the MiG-29KR and the Su-33, and the MiG-35 is being made carrier compatible, yet they clearly need arrested landing equipment to operate on the Kuznetsov... so even supposing they develop a VSTOL fighter in the next 20 years the MiG and the Su will likely continue to operate from the K.

like MiG-29k in 90s? no, not really. So far the only argument against new deck fighter is your opinion. Im afraid this is not enough for Russian MoD.

The Russian mod is talking about STOL aircraft with the possiblity of STOVL... it is your warped little mind that converts it to VSTOL.... nobody with any experience in the field wants vertical take off... it is like wanting someone who can jump.... people who jump with a run up can jump higher and further than people who jump from a standing position... if you need the best jumper it might be the one that jumps from a standing position, but in the interests of getting the best height and length of jump you tell him to run and jump and never try it from a standing position.

AWACS can be STOL or VSTOL (if tiltrotor) so what would be argument for money for emals besides?

The best solution is an airship for AWACS so you don't need any carriers at all... an airship mounted radar could also be equipped with photonic radar that will give a photograph like image of targets enormous distances away so you wont need fighter jets to fly out and inspect contacts... surface launched SAMs can use target data from the airborne airship operating at 30km plus altitude... safe from AAM and SAM attack and covered by the ships below it... no need at all for fighters or AWACS aircraft and it could keep station 24/7 with a small nuclear reactor to generate continuous electrical power for electric motors...

c'mon you are really intelligent guy. Why do you pretend to be moron? try to be serious.

BTW PSK-FA cost ~₽60bn so $1bn to to days prices (wiki says in 2010 ~$3bn). Of course now you have to pay people more but Engines, avionics, stealth "skins" all is there. to be reused. Factories have specialists and are up and running.

SO both time and costs can be reasonable.

The cost of a VSTOL fighter will not be cheap, you are deluding yourself... they have to design a new engine for goodness sake... that alone will take ten years and billions of dollars.

i assume you understand written language. Then read an interview with gen. Bondaryev.

And how long will he be in his position?

In an interview with an Army guy in the late 1990s, Russian armour is junk and Russia should get rid of the T-90 and buy Leopard tanks... we he right too?

No matter what anyone says the simple facts are that the Russian Navy has not got bottomless pockets... it wanted lots of carriers... on the smaller ones it was going to have MiG-33s and on the bigger ones it was going to have Su-33s.... and yes on both carriers it was also going to have Yak-41s, but there was no money for more than one carrier and the Yak-41 wasn't working properly so it was the first to be cancelled. The MiG-29K was fully multirole, which made it expensive for what it was... the Su-33 was cheaper and simpler because it was basically an Su-27 with a tail hook and folding bits... so AAMs and dumb iron bombs and unguided rockets was the extent of its capabilities. No ground or sea mapping radar... just an interceptor... which is all they wanted so they bought them.

An opportunity arose where they got the chance to tack an order for upgraded MiG-29KRs on an Indian order... the Indians paid for production and tooling to be set up and the Russian Navy got some MiG-29KR aircraft much cheaper than they ever could have otherwise.

You say that the boss has said the MiG and the Sukhoi are going even though the former are literally brand new... well I would say that this just means they are making a naval Su-57 to replace them, and they are working on a light 5th gen fighter that could also replace them but when push comes to shove they will make the same decision... go with the big plane... and not the smaller more expensive one that is more capable on paper but in practise they want an interceptor first and foremost... the rest can be done with missiles like Zircon...

The air component in the Navy are not powerful for a reason... the navy does not want air power taking over from ships because air power cannot hold water like a ship or sub can... just the same as the army don't want their air power to replace Iskander...

So you know better diagnose? dude what are you smoking after weekend?! or it as after wild night in "Blue Oyster" ?

Blue Oyster club? Never been to your house...

Let's return to facts: Irbis N035 X-band so doesnt "see " stealth that far. English wiki says 0,01m RCS is 90km while F-35 can see him form at least 240km.

Who cares what wiki says? When the Syrians got S-300, the Israeli F-35s stopped crossing the border... how far away does wiki say S-300 can see F-35s?

yo yo expert! yes and for adding a hook they need special programme,name Perspektivny Aviastionny Kompek Palubny Aviatsyi? PAK PA (vide: recent interview chief of naval AF) and 7-10 years?

Yo yo nigger... a programme name means they want a particular product but any design bureau can develop a contender... MiG and Yak might develop a light-medium STOVL fighter for the job, while Sukhoi might simply navalise the Su-57 for the role... which are you putting your money on?

MiGs you meant those 4 on Kuz that were actually flying? dont bother, risks? leave this to Russian MoD/OAK. They have real knowledge

Experience of Yak-36, Yak-38, and Yak-41 of crashing and burning...

Why ? Why do you think the Su 35 is far better than the Indian Su 30MKI ?

It uses 5th gen avionics that make it able to perform the roles with a single crew man...

UAE ??? How did they improve the Pantsir ? They only use an export version which cannot be as high tech as the Russian one.

It was the demands of the UAE that led to the Pantsir-S1... the Russian military was happy with the original much less capable model.

a) Yak-41 killed nobody as MiG-29k did. RIP pilots, good that this failed fighter is dead now.

The Yak-41 programme was killed before it could claim lives... the most humane kill.

Of course Rafale is better and made in bigger numbers ! you have no evidence but your gut feeling is ok.

My black friend, you think numbers on a spec sheet tell you which plane is best?

and over 300 F-35 delivered, so how many Rafale were delivered?

Hahahahaha... and when Serbia starts buying M4 carbines because America tells them to I guess the M4 carbine becomes better than any other rifle too...

F-35 is everything to do with politics and nothing to do with substance...

If Rafales were that good, by now India would've ordered many of them for her navy, esp. since they did for the AF!

If F-35s were all that good they would have ordered them for her navy and AF...

The new Russian STOVL fighter'll be at least as capable as the F-35B.

But how much will it cost?

Problem with Rafale is it is too expensive for what you get.

The problem for foreign customers... for France it is investing in its own MIC.

as I thought, no evidence just word of mouth. Well big black cock tv didn't say anything about harriers nor F-35 landing vertically ? no? well, CNN did neither. But Ruskies are baad. Ergo: only Russian VSTOL are damging runways US/UK ones dont thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
Case closed as for me.

Harriers don't have afterburner, and the F-35 didn't exist in 1992.

BTW so how it goest with Rafale vs. F-35 intl sales comparison? dobt be shy provide numbers

Who gives a fuck?

Neither will enter Russian service... this thread is about Russian fighter development, not the crap France or the US try to ram down their allies throats...

you mean and twisting and bribery ? It India it ended up in big scandal. Arabs are more accustomed to palms greasing. But in every case it is easy to compare all Rafale history vs only F-35 made till now. Rafele is clear looser. An outdated looser good only in 3rd world countries bombing.

I am confused.... arm twisting and bribery regarding the Rafale, but the F-35 is a good aircraft?

I can smell your burning underpants from here...

F-35 is perhaps overpriced (cost of programme) but is not as bad as many of you think. At least not for Russian chief-in-commander AF.
Su-57 is very likely a better fighter but even if you can have 3 F-35 for 1 Su-57 Russians are on loosing side of business...

Of course because in war it is like dungeons and dragons and everyone puts their cards on the table so three F-35 cards go up against 1 Su-57 card every time... but let me ask you why Israeli and US F-35s wont enter Syrian airspace while Syria has S-300 and no Su-57s at all?

The fact is: none of Rafale clients could even dream to buy F-35. Besides Rafale is French only but F-35 has also industrial links to many other countries that is one of reasons why they buy.

UK, Italy, Netherlands, Canada,Australia, Turkey , Norway and Denmark. What they would buy old French fighter is they can buy the oe they invested in?

You wander so close to the truth... it is amusing... F-35 isn't a plane... it is an arms racket... a sham to separate western taxpayers from their hard earned cash for something that is obsolete before it is even declared operational...

They'll beat Russia & China to having naval STOVL fighters in the Pacific!

Good... that is not a race Russia needs to win...

The only country that should fear this carrier is north korea.

Not really... the short operational range of the F-35 means most coastal anti ship systems the Russians sell would obliterate these carriers.

Should the Izumo-class undergo a retrofit to accommodate the F-35B, the ships’ ASW capabilities would be somewhat curtailed, as numerous defense analysts have pointed out.

Like I said.... convert a helicopter carrier to operate STOVL fighters and it becomes less useful in its primary role...

What they really need are a couple of Ka-52Ks with R-77s and Kh-35s...

If F-35s were all that good they would have ordered them for her navy and AF...

Wrong comparison as there r other factors at play.
They r dragging their feet on the F-16 deal & nixed the F-18 offer a few years back- among other things, they don't want to depend on US whims later & be slammed with sanctions/delays. Their geopolitical flexibility will be compromised if they put all eggs in 1 basket.
OTH, France will be all to happy to sell more Rafales to any1 as long it's not Russia, Iran, Syria, NK or China.

But how much will it cost?

A lot less than CATOBAR CVNs with EMALS, fixed wing AWACS, & their escorts!

Wrong comparison as there r other factors at play.
They r dragging their feet on the F-16 deal & nixed the F-18 offer a few years back- among other things, they don't want to depend on US whims later & be slammed with sanctions/delays.

If they think that then why buy apache helos from them?

There is no F-16 deal... you are talking about a US offer... India has to sign stuff for it to be a deal...

Their geopolitical flexibility will be compromised if they put all eggs in 1 basket.

They have French and Russian fighters why not buy US F-35s if they are so great?

A lot less than CATOBAR CVNs with EMALS, fixed wing AWACS, & their escorts!

You seem to suggest developing 5th gen VSTOL fighters can be done in a vacuum... they will need CVNs and AWACS and escorts no matter what sort of carrier they get... the only real difference is that it will be ineffectual and useless.... so if the alternatives are emals, cvns, Su-57K, and escorts, or VSTOL mini CVNs, and escorts and some funky VSTOL AWACS and escorts they would clearly be much better off spending the extra money and getting a force that can actually be effective...

The only currently operational VSTOL fighter likely to be considered good enough... ie 5th gen fighter is the F-35, which seems to actually be bloody ordinary by realistic parameters... its best feature is that it is in use by the worlds last super power, but that means nothing to other users because it cannot be relied on.... hell even the US and Israel are finding it of no use in Syria against S-300s... and the sort of IADS two generations behind most new Russian ships will be fitted with now let alone in 10 years time...

If they think that then why buy apache helos from them?

They liked it better as the Mi-28 had problems in Syria & isn't as good for them, in their opinion, in all aspects. Diversification is the name of the game: It's good for their AF but not the navy.

There is no F-16 deal... you are talking about a US offer... India has to sign stuff for it to be a deal...

Right, they r keeping the US guessing, saying neither "yes" nor "no".

.hell even the US and Israel are finding it of no use in Syria against S-300s..

The Russian VMF STOVLs won't be facing S-300/-400, unless they go to war with Greece, India, China or Turkey. In those cases, hypersonics  will be used to destroy them 1st.

They liked it better as the Mi-28 had problems in Syria & isn't as good for them, in their opinion, in all aspects.

So you are saying that because the Apache was a mature proven system... even if it is expensive to operate and a known hangar queen, they chose it over the Mi-28 because it was more capable?

Wouldn't that apply to the F-35 if it actually was more capable than either the Rafale or the MiG-35?

They chose the Rafale as part of a programme for medium fighters... the Su-30MKI is a heavy fighter and was only considered because the Rafales were costing more than Flankers were.

It's good for their AF but not the navy.

They only bought 36 for their AF so how good could it really have been?

Right, they r keeping the US guessing, saying neither "yes" nor "no".

It is what I said... the US made an offer but the Indians have not said yes or no, so it is not a deal... it is a proposal from the US side...

The Russian VMF STOVLs won't be facing S-300/-400, unless they go to war with Greece, India, China or Turkey. In those cases, hypersonics will be used to destroy them 1st.

The S-300 entered service in the 1970s but you don't think a new aircraft to be developed over the next ten years can't cope with an air defence system that entered service in the 1970s... will be almost 60 years old when this Russian fighter gets operational... if it can't defeat S-300 then what is the point?

BTW that video was amusing...

Reason 5 is bullshit.... the fact that the Rafale can operate from a French carrier means nothing to the Indians because it wont be operating from any of theirs.

The fact that dassault call the Rafale an omnirole fighter is marketing.... all those roles listed the Flanker can also perform, and as mentioned for 1/3rd of the aircraft price and likely 1/10th of the weapon price too.

Reason four is also bullshit... any radar that can detect aircraft will detect both... especially when both have external stores... In places defended with powerful radar you want the big airplane that can carry lots of anti radiation missiles as well as a normal offensive and defensive payload... and that would be Flanker.

Reason three, France is independent and can be a trusted supplier... except for Mistral carriers I guess?

France has refused to sell more Mirage jets to India and demands India buy the much more expensive Rafale jet instead... what sort of trusted partner is France to force an overpriced jet on India?

Russia has stood by India too in terms of spare parts and support as well as joint ventures... who else is ready to lease SSNs to India?

Reason one China has Flankers... so why is India spending 6 billion dollars on 36 Rafales when they could have had 126 MiG-35s for the original 10 billion dollar programme price?

China does not have MiG-29s or MiG-35s and 126 MiG-35s for 10 billion is rather better than 126 Rafales for 25 billion that they were going to charge them.

If the F-35 is so wonderful why didn't India buy them... I remember at least one US official suggesting it...

[quote="GarryB"]

So you are saying that because the Apache was a mature proven system... even if it is expensive to operate and a known hangar queen, they chose it over the Mi-28 because it was more capable?

I suspect they also got kickbacks & wanted to keep good relations with the US. Apaches were & r being exported to many other clients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Operators

The Indians didn't want the original Mi-28, & they had a reason for it:
The Indian Military asked for a modified prototype of Mi-28 fitted with French and Belgian avionics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-28#India

Wouldn't that apply to the F-35 if it actually was more capable than either the Rafale or the MiG-35?

It would, but the F-35 is a lot more expensive & they already wasted $Bs on 11 C-17s (at 218M each) instead of paying le$$ for Il-476s (at $140M each) that can't haul their tanks, which may not be that critical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#Indian_Air_Force
http://aviaglobus.ru/2013/05/30/6426/

They only bought 36 for their AF so how good could it really have been?

They don't need any more as they have many other fighters, + it's a controversial deal with alleged corruption.

The S-300 entered service in the 1970s but you don't think a new aircraft to be developed over the next ten years can't cope with an air defence system that entered service in the 1970s...

An F-117 was wasted by the S-125 Neva of 1961 vintage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown#Downing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora

a few nights later, Serb missiles damaged a second F-117. ..
the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_loss

An F-16I to S-200. Developed in the late 1950s, the S-200 has been in service for more than half a century, while the F-16I has been in operation only since 2004.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242030

So, old SAMs r still dangerous.

I suspect they also got kickbacks & wanted to keep good relations with the US. Apaches were & r being exported to many other clients.

Of course there were bribes and likely kickbacks, but at the time the Apache was a mature system... expensive, but it did the job, while the Mi-28 was immature...

Ironically now with experience in Syria, I would suspect the Mi-28 has improved immensely and would likely now be a much better option, but they made their choice...

The Indians didn't want the original Mi-28, & they had a reason for it:
The Indian Military asked for a modified prototype of Mi-28 fitted with French and Belgian avionics.

There is the corruption... they would get kickbacks from each european company they managed to get into the Mi-28, so perhaps the Apache involved less corruption than the Russian helo might have...

It would, but the F-35 is a lot more expensive & they already wasted $Bs on 11 C-17s (at 218M each) instead of paying le$$ for Il-476s (at $140M each) that can't haul their tanks, which may not be that critical:

Well they bought C-17s for political reasons... the C-17 is a distributed production aircraft... they build factories especially for it in states with high unemployment so that senators ended up signing off on funds to make more C-17s even when the pentagon didn't ask for them because they wanted the factories in their voting constituents to keep running. External orders for such aircraft would be welcomed by the senate who would therefore be less likely to sign off on sanctions against that country... they could cancel their order...

The Il-476 wasn't in production at the time and therefore was not an alternative at that stage.

Now of course you could get 4-5 of them for the price of one C-17...

They don't need any more as they have many other fighters, + it's a controversial deal with alleged corruption.

They needed 126 of them... that was the whole point of the original competition. With them buying only 36 fighters now they need to open another competition to fill the gaps left and the new gaps as aircraft retire.

Personally I think they should have simply split the deal... 36 Rafales and say 96 MiG-35s, but as I keep saying I am biased.

An F-117 was wasted by the S-125 Neva of 1961 vintage:

Enormous numbers of aircraft flew an enormous number of sorties and what... two aircraft in total were shot down by an air defence with pathetic old equipment that was skillfully handled.

And that was the point because it was the first time NATO and the US went up against an enemy that knew what it was doing even if it didn't have the right equipment to really hurt them.

So, old SAMs r still dangerous.

There is a difference between the occasional success and an air defence system your enemy refuses to operate in because it is scared...

The Il-476 wasn't in production at the time and therefore was not an alternative at that stage.

As a stop gap, they should have bought a few 2nd hand AN-124s &/ IL-76MDs like China did & saved those $4.1B.
In any case, India doesn't want/need STOVLs now  & needs to graduate to better STOBARs 1st; they r more likely to get naval MiG-35s long before thinking about getting STOVLs again, if ever.

The navy’s two large helicopter carriers, the Izumo and Kaga, will be modified for F-35B operations, the paper said.
The 248-metre (814 ft) long Izumo-class ships are as big as any of Japan’s aircraft carriers in World War Two. They will need reinforced decks to withstand the heat blast from F-35 engines and could be fitted with ramps to aid short take-offs, two defence ministry officials told Reuters.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-defence/japan-to-buy-more-u-s-made-stealth-jets-radar-to-counter-china-russia-idUKKBN1OH067

Russia could do the same with UDKs for her STOVLs.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia could do the same with UDKs for her STOVLs.

I think that is pretty much the plan...

Russia could do the same with UDKs for her STOVLs.

But what value would those small ships be most of the time?

They would be no safer from enemy hypersonic weapons than a much bigger ship, yet that bigger ship could have full sized real fighters with decent flight ranges and long range weapons.

The USN is complaining about the CATOBAR F-35s that have better performance than the STOVL F-35s because they say they lack range to attack targets and to defend the carrier from enemy air strikes... which makes them sound pretty fing useless to me in what is basically their two primary roles.

I am sure if they had a CATOBAR F-22 it would not cost that much more than the F-35s are costing them and would offer vastly superior performance... in other words what is called value for money.

But what value would those small ships be most of the time?

As UDK/CVN hybrids, they may be as big as the RN QE or the Chinese CV-17, with defensive & offensive armaments like on a TAKR.

GarryB wrote:But what value would those small ships be most of the time?

They could act as a "fire fighting brigade" for low intensity conflicts. A fast deployment of such a vessel to a country in the first steps of being destabilised could help both militarily and by signalling clear political will that could help deter foreign actors from going too far. Above all it should support intelligence and command, deploy especial forces and provide basic strike capabilities without needing to send a carrier group.

They would be no safer from enemy hypersonic weapons than a much bigger ship, yet that bigger ship could have full sized real fighters with decent flight ranges and long range weapons.

Those kind of weapons would only be present in high-intensity conflicts I would say... for those the additional support of full fledged carriers is needed, of course. But there are by far more COIN operations and low intensity situations than the more serious ones. So this could be a rational way to spend the money IMO.

The USN is complaining about the CATOBAR F-35s that have better performance than the STOVL F-35s because they say they lack range to attack targets and to defend the carrier from enemy air strikes... which makes them sound pretty fing useless to me in what is basically their two primary roles.

I am sure if they had a CATOBAR F-22 it would not cost that much more than the F-35s are costing them and would offer vastly superior performance... in other words what is called value for money.

Well, F-22 does not seem to have more range than F-35. But of course not having a real naval heavy fighter with long range and air superiority capability leaves them massively compromised for the future, without being able to defend from missiles like Kinzhal and extremely exposed in case Su-57K is developed. MQ-25 and UCAVS will need to compensate the lack of range but those are only stop-gap solutions.

Tsavo Lion wrote:As UDK/CVN hybrids, they may be as big as the RN QE or the Chinese CV-17, with defensive & offensive armaments like on a TAKR.

Two-step solution with LHDs on the one hand and CV(N)s on the other seems more rational to me and more in line with naval strategy prevalent in other countries and with Russian documents as well.

LMFS wrote:
Now 70% after realizing maybe buying some spares would help... respect!

Why didn't you tell about those crazy Indians instead of choosing the MiG for your terror story? No plane can be kept operative without spares

Indians actually
1) stopped using MiG-29k in November 2018
2) didn even consider MiG in new navy deck aviation tender

Russia:
3) MiG itself erased 29k from existence. I hope they reworked this epic fail in 35 edition

4) Zvezda (actually officially presentign Ru Armed forces view published column bashing MiG-29k. Text one day later disappeared with info that MiG will officially respond to this issue. I look forward to see this.

Yes, I hope Tarasenko can save as much a possible from epic fail of MiG-29k. One crappy project cannot down all company

In Russia, pleaded guilty for the failure of the MiG-29K in India

https://lenta.ru/news/2018/12/18/mig29k/

India’s refusal to supply the Soviet (Russian) deck-based multipurpose fighter of the fourth generation of the MiG-29K is to blame for the manufacturer ( MiG Corporation ), writes the weekly Zvezda.

The publication notes that the Indian military spoke of the aircraft as a car, which is "riddled with problems." In particular, the specialists had complaints about the quality of the airframe, the control system and the simulator training program. Most of the problems were observed with the power plant, as a result of which, since February 2010, 40 engines were withdrawn from operation due to factory production.

Landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier looks like a hard landing,” leads the publication opinion of the pilots. - The aircraft needs frequent repairs. Because of such landings, structural defects are constantly manifested. ”

According to the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) Ruslan Pukhov , the situation around the MiG-29K is a “really very unpleasant story”, due to which MiG was not invited to participate in the tender for an Indian ship plane. “The French, the Swedes, the Americans will participate ... If we don’t want to lose India, there should never be a repetition of such stories,” said the expert.

In November, India decided to abandon the use of the MiG-29K. Replacement for Russian aircraft will be selected during the tender. In total, India received 45 MiG-29K units from Russia. Deliveries did not include aircraft maintenance, which had to be paid separately. In the "MiG" confess to problems with the delivered fighters.

In April, India suspended cooperation with Russia on the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) project, which envisages the creation of the first fifth-generation Indian fighter based on the Russian Su-57.

In the same month, the director of MiG, Ilya Tarasenko, said that Russia allowed for the transfer to India of the technologies that underlie the generation 4 ++ MiG-35 multi-purpose lightweight fighter.

Well that is where we clearly differ... I think the best idea is to take a gun to a knife fight... why allow the enemy the opportunity to hurt you?

There is no bonus prize for being fair...

Having a large fixed wing carrier with real fixed wing fighters and AWACS likely would have deterred Argentina from attacking the Falklands Islands... having cheap small untested carriers almost cost the British that war... if they didn't take the brand new all aspect model Sidewinders from NATO stocks they could have really been in the shit.

As it was they lost a lot of ships...

GarryB wrote:

Russia could do the same with UDKs for her STOVLs.

But what value would those small ships be most of the time?

They would be no safer from enemy hypersonic weapons than a much bigger ship, yet that bigger ship could have full sized real fighters with decent flight ranges and long range weapons.

well I can see here kind of  cognitive dissonance.  If hypersonic weapons are so effective then size of CVN doesn't matter really. If not why to invest in them?    With 1,500km radius (GZUR)  CV can control area of ~ 7mln km2? with 0 range of it deck fighters.


Murmansk - Copenhagen ~1,800km (GZUR 1500) so with small range you can control Baltic Straits. From Murmansk.  

Murmansk - Reykjavik, the distance is ~2,400kms  so CV with fighters with radius of 900km can control theoretically ships  navigating around Island.  OK  thsi is crap. So what would you consider


All the time CV is Murmansk Harbour.   So tell me what performance shall be for  "real fighter"? like payload, range?

GB wrote: The USN is complaining about the CATOBAR F-35s that have better performance than the STOVL F-35s because they say they lack range to attack targets and to defend the carrier from enemy air strikes... which makes them sound pretty fing useless to me in what is basically their two primary roles.

I am sure if they had a CATOBAR F-22 it would not cost that much more than the F-35s are costing them and would offer vastly superior performance... in other words what is called value for money.

F-35C range is officially 2,200km on internal fuel. So more than F-18 and MiG-29k.

F-22 (non navalized version) - no data on internal fuel, only radius- 850km (vide 700 km Yak-141 / 850km for MiG-29k)

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:As UDK/CVN hybrids, they may be as big as the RN QE or the Chinese CV-17, with defensive & offensive armaments like on a TAKR.

Two-step solution with LHDs on the one hand and CV(N)s on the other seems more rational to me and more in line with naval strategy prevalent in other countries and with Russian documents as well.

Documents never stated size of CV, nor its specialization or generalization in functions performed. AFAIR always Russians say about multi-functional ships , drones ans so on.
There is no high intensity non nuclear conflict, if nukes start flying all CVNs will become " common beds of honor" , no long range fighters can defend from Kinzhal or Gzur.

What will Ru Navy chooses well see soon...financially logic says small and universal is good enough and many times cheaper.

To compensate for shorter range deck fighters, a few long range UAVs & AD escorts can stay 100s of miles away to extend the defensive bubble around the UDK.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Indians actually
1) stopped using MiG-29k in November 2018

Do you have a source?

Russia:
3) MiG itself erased 29k from existence. I hope they reworked this epic fail in 35 edition

I still see the plane in official sites...

4) Zvezda (actually officially presentign Ru Armed forces view published column bashing MiG-29k. Text one day later disappeared with info that MiG will officially respond to this issue. I look forward to see this.

Yes, let's see what MiG replies. Indian officials said some days ago the planes are operating ok and MiG already denied Indian complains before. This time around the critics seem Russian, which is interesting indeed...

Yes, I hope Tarasenko can save as much a possible from epic fail of MiG-29k.

Terror stories again?

GarryB wrote:Well that is where we clearly differ... I think the best idea is to take a gun to a knife fight... why allow the enemy the opportunity to hurt you?

There is no bonus prize for being fair...

I think it is just a matter of not tying too many resources to every mission. In this case, not forcing the CVs to nurse always the assault ships. If they are available ok, but if not the LHDs need to be capable of deployments to low intensity conflicts on their own.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Documents never stated size of CV, nor its specialization or generalization in functions performed.  AFAIR always Russians say about multi-functional ships , drones ans so on.

Will check the 2015 and 2017 documents. They are pretty general it is true, comments to them have been more specific but they are not always official.

There is no high intensity non nuclear conflict,

Credible deterrence is both conventional and nuclear. This is indeed stated in the naval strategy and known to everyone familiar with military issues and escalation management. Otherwise you grant your enemy always a wildcard to harass and provoke you, just short of reaching your nuclear threshold.

no long range fighters can defend from Kinzhal or Gzur.

They can, if you force the other side to hide beyond of the range of their missiles. That is why USN wants more range for their fighters and is deploying the MQ-25 in the sort term.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Indians actually
1) stopped using MiG-29k in November 2018

Do you have a source?

Lenta I've provided in first post.
https://lenta.ru/news/2018/12/18/mig29k/

My bad
В ноябре Индия решила отказаться от использования МиГ-29К in November  Indians refused from using. I.e. to me  wanted replacement.

LMFS wrote:

Russia:
3) MiG itself erased 29k from existence. I hope they reworked this epic fail in 35 edition

I still see the plane in official sites...

ok if we ignore real world's evidence and assume MiG is Aliexpress then you're right.
BTW so how many 29ks were ordered since 2012?

LMFS wrote:

4) Zvezda (actually officially presenting Ru Armed forces view published column bashing MiG-29k. Text one day later disappeared with info that MiG will officially respond to this issue. I look forward to see this.

Yes, let's see what MiG replies. Indian officials said some days ago the planes are operating ok and MiG already denied Indian complains before. This time around the critics seem Russian, which is interesting indeed...

originally it was here. NOw only in other places ink  from lenta just reproduces what they posted there.
https://zvezdaweekly.ru/

LMFS wrote:

Yes, I hope Tarasenko can save as much a possible from epic fail of MiG-29k.

Terror stories again?

talking about stories form the crypt so what is exactly empty weight  MiG-29k ? if not 13,500-12,700kg then why MiG is not showing it?
BTW MiG-29 ew is 10,900kg. So navalization costs  24-17% weight .

Speed dropped from   2450km/h  vs. 2,200 km/h with stronger engines +~10%


yes and that is horror

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Documents never stated size of CV, nor its specialization or generalization in functions performed.  AFAIR always Russians say about multi-functional ships , drones ans so on.

Will check the 2015 and 2017 documents. They are pretty general it is true, comments to them have been more specific but they are not always official.

There is no high intensity non nuclear conflict,

we did it with Kremlin site? "shipborne aircraft carrying complex"

LMFS wrote:Credible deterrence is both conventional and nuclear. This is indeed stated in the naval strategy and known to everyone familiar with military issues and escalation management. Otherwise you grant your enemy always a wildcard to harass and provoke you, just short of reaching your nuclear threshold.

since you are so familiar tell me where is here function of displacement or airwing size?

LMFS wrote:

no long range fighters can defend from Kinzhal or Gzur.

They can, if you force the other side to hide beyond of the range of their missiles. That is why USN wants more range for their fighters and is deploying the MQ-25 in the sort term.

then why to build CV at all? since you require fighters with radius of 3,000km? If you use airtankers then Yak-141 can be ok with refuelling.

Isos wrote:

They can, if you force the other side to hide beyond of the range of their missiles. That is why USN wants more range for their fighters and is deploying the MQ-25 in the sort term.

A drone tanker won't help if there are 15-20 fighter coming with kinzhal from many sides at different range since it can refuel one or two jets and they will have a couple of them around.

The refueling will need a perfect timing because the window to intercept a fighter 1000km away is very small. The further they go the less they can spend patroling and a refueling takes some minutes to do.

They need more fuel in their jets for that and f-35 is very small ...

if aerial refueling would help then Yak-141 can have enough range too

BTW F-35 radius is ~50% bigger then MiG-29k