Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

LMFS wrote:
Wow, still peddling the F-A/XX? Man you deserve recognition for your efforts, clearly beyond those of USN (they don't even bother publishing much about the program since a while)

Care detailing how the survivability in "access denial" zones (against IADs to avoid unnecessary & misleading US terms) is achieved in F-A/XX?? I mean, apart from vague references to fancy energy weapons, lasers, smart skins and high-tech engines... what? When? How many? How expensive? Where are the demonstrators to all those features? Where are even the requirements? Is it official that it is not going to be stealth and US is giving up on VLO technology??? This is news to me...

1) I love to hear the laser/EW weapons are to you SCi-Fi, perhaps it is good to read sometimes military news? I can see the same denial as before with VSTOL
Survability is first of all using weapons to shoot down missiles, dazzle their sensors or cook electronics. if there be any special armor dunno.



https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/4421436

MOSCOW, March 6. / TASS /. The newest MiG-35 fighter is able to use all types of aircraft ammunition that the Russian Space Forces (RFC) have, including laser weapons. This was broadcast on the air of the radio station Ekho Moskvy by General Director of the Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) MiG Ilya Tarasenko.

"Laser weapons involve the use of a certain laser technology.Our aircraft use the entire range of modern weapons, which is now available from the Ministry of Defense, including using those issues related to laser weapons," he said.

Earlier, the chief of the Air and Space Forces of Russia, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, announced the possibility of using laser weapons on the MiG-35 aircraft.

Coming in 2021: A laser weapon for fighter jets

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin will create a high-powered laser for the U.S. Air Force that will be demonstrated on a fighter jet in 2021.
+++
If successful, the technology could be a game-changer. The Air Force has long desired an airborne laser so that it can take out surface-to-air and air-to-air missile threats more cheaply than current intercept methods.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/11/07/coming-in-2021-a-laser-weapon-for-fighter-jets/

U.S. AIR FORCE JET-MOUNTED LASER WEAPONS SET FOR SUMMER TESTS

https://www.newsweek.com/air-force-jet-mounted-laser-weapons-set-summer-tests-852889




2) when what?
well do you know when Russian CVNs will be build? how many VSTOL fighters? will they carry maser or lasers? BTW why do you peddling Su-57k , did anybody ever mentioned about this version? AFAIK was only once on plastic model of Shtorm. Which is not going to be build BTW

And more importantly: if Su-57 is not capable of matching it, being the by far most capable naval fighter potentially to be deployed in short or medium term, your couple squadrons STOVL aboard a small LHD are?? Or what is the approach you propose??

You dont need something made of gold and the best. You need a good work horse thet you can afford. PzKpfw V was a bit better then T-34-85/M4 Sherman but was build 1:6.
My educated guess is that VSTOL will be in many respects 6gn fighter (supermaneuverability, short start/vertical, efficient engine, microwave/ laser weapons, advanced avionics (drone mode?) . This is not going to replace Su-57 but complete is as MiG-29/Su-27 then Su-30 will be gradually withdrawn. VSTOL is perhaps mainly die to better usage of small medium displacement ships. There is no need fo rany deck fighter before 2030s anyway.

This is game of money. You cannot spend beyond your means. That's why I dont believe big CVNs will ever fit into Russian military doctrine. At Most I'd say 60-70k but then their number will be then very limited. And one effectively available. In north.


I dotn propose. I just say cost/battle efficiency ratio using smaller carrier and light fighters is much higher. Russia will and cannot spend in US fashion as you want to see it. Navy programmes are cut and postponed. Navy wanted to build many Liders but ended up with couple of Groskhov M's. Instead of many 11356 they build 22800. Tehy wanted 100k+ then 70k is OK, now Krylov showed 40k . That's how financial restrictions helps to overcome megalomania.

Then now suddenly they will spill a barrel of fluid gold and start building large CVNs? Somehow I dont see it.

Mind VSTOL is approved officially unlike Su-57k. It dosent even exist in far far away plans.

in fact you dont need Su-57 at all! neither 6gen fighter Russia is workin on.

Of course you do... it is always good to have aircraft superior to any potential enemy... which is what the MiG-35, and Su-35, and MiG-31 are... Su-57s just take it up another level....

No su-33is dead branch only waiting to be decommissioned.

Su-33 is a perfectly good airframe that just needs a new radar and new missiles to be very very dangerous.

Good comparison to Su-33

Most of the stuff in the Su-57 will eventually be shoe horned into the Su-35... so fitting it into the Su-33 should not be a problem.

New missiles and new fighters it wont stop just like that. Missiles good for F-22 perhaps wont be good against F/AXX.

The planes they launch them from are just missile trucks... the difference will be the hundred million dollar plus US missile trucks and the 20 million dollar Russian ones...

when your wife says in the morning: honey it was adequate, Im not sure if this is reason to celebrate

Reminds me of a joke... a prostitute is in bed and the huge biker customer is taking off his pants and out pops a tiny little one inch penis. She looks at him and asks... who is that supposed to satisfy... to which he replies... Me.

why use 4 gen dead "adequate" fighter (in 2030 also lifecycle of air-frames/engines are et the end) if you get 6th one, better in every scenario?

Because the 4th gen fighter is already paid for, so it is free, and the new avionics you are adding to it to keep it competitive are going into all new fighters too, so it keeps consistency, good for mass production, good for training, and good for keeping costs down... having plenty of Su-33s with up to date electronics is better than only being able to afford 12 new light 5th gen fighters because they are so expensive and aerodynamically unproven.

The Su-57s can go on the new carriers, and any 6th gen UCAVs can be deployed on both carrier types...

so actually they need 3 to have almost 2 operational at the same time. Before 3 is launched Kuz will be dead.

They need three carriers in total, so with the K they need two CVNs to achieve that... eventually the K can be retired and replaced with a third CVN.

You dont need something made of gold and the best. You need a good work horse thet you can afford.

They are not going to have thousands of carrier based fighters so there is no point in developing a whole new aircraft especially for the job, but of the land based aircraft to pick from it makes no sense to pick an old aircraft like a MiG-23... pick the newest and most capable and keep using what you have got until that is ready to replace it.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
1) I love to hear the laser/EW weapons are to you SCi-Fi, perhaps it is good to read sometimes military news? I can see the same denial as before with VSTOL
Survability is first of all using weapons to shoot down missiles, dazzle their sensors or cook electronics. if there  be any special armor dunno.

By now it is not even close to being operational. It will come probably, but we are still far from that. Countermeasures will be developed and doctrine will need to be adapted. It is still unclear if these weapons will make a change in the kind of platforms used for air combat, maybe in the future fighters are substituted for transport planes with huge DEW and stocks of drones and/or missiles, who knows. So if traditional fighters are still applicable, these systems could be implemented on a Su-57. If not, the F/A-XX would be obsolete too, if ever developed at all.

Earlier, the chief of the Air and Space Forces of Russia, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, announced the possibility of using laser weapons on the MiG-35 aircraft

Laser GUIDED weapons...

Coming in 2021: A laser weapon for fighter jets

Yes yes yes...

2) when what?
well do you know when Russian CVNs will be build? how many VSTOL fighters? will they carry maser or lasers?  BTW why do you peddling    Su-57k , did anybody ever  mentioned about this version? AFAIK was only once on plastic model of Shtorm. Which is not going to be build BTW  

Su-57K has been a recurring discussion of course, but there is no official confirmation as of now. But hope dies last you know
Differently to fictional F/A-XX and STOVL, the baseline model already flies. And the K is there.

You dont need something made of gold and the best. You need a good work horse thet you can afford. PzKpfw V was a bit better  then T-34-85/M4 Sherman but was build 1:6.
My educated guess is that VSTOL will be in many respects 6gn fighter (supermaneuverability, short start/vertical, efficient engine, microwave/ laser weapons, advanced avionics (drone mode?) . This is not going to replace Su-57 but complete is as MiG-29/Su-27 then Su-30 will be gradually withdrawn.  VSTOL is perhaps mainly die to better usage of small medium displacement ships. There is no need fo rany deck fighter before 2030s anyway.

Still not clear how you want to meet the threats with less planes not better than those from USN or what the posture is going to be, if you can't meet them.

That's how financial restrictions helps to overcome megalomania.

This I agree. But a naval version of the Su-57, three or four carriers like the K but modern and good AWACS/AEW/Tanker solutions are not megalomania IMO. Maybe yes for UK but not for Russia.

Mind VSTOL is approved officially unlike Su-57k. It dosent even exist in far far away plans.

We'll see...  

GarryB wrote:

in fact you dont need Su-57 at all! neither 6gen fighter Russia is workin on.

Of course you do... it is always good to have aircraft superior to any potential enemy... which is what the MiG-35, and Su-35, and MiG-31 are... Su-57s just take it up another level....  

MiG-35 is not gonna be produced. Su-35 is great but too big for caeeirs role same as Su-57

No su-33is dead branch only waiting to be decommissioned.

Su-33 is a perfectly good airframe that just needs a new radar and new missiles to be very very dangerous.

is any of your girlfriends younger then 65?        Nobody ever said about resuming Su-33 production but about retirement they did. many times.

New missiles and new fighters it wont stop just like that. Missiles good for F-22 perhaps wont be good against F/AXX.

The planes they launch them from are just missile trucks... the difference will be the hundred million dollar plus US missile trucks and the 20 million dollar Russian ones...

Su-57 is so far 830mlns $  USD per unit. Not sure about what 20mlns are you talking about?  Planes indeed are missile trucks but that's why both sides are working on directed energy weapons. To shoot incoming missiles.

when your wife says in the morning: honey it was adequate, Im not sure if this is reason to celebrate

Reminds me of a joke... a prostitute is in bed and the huge biker customer is taking off his pants and out pops a tiny little one inch penis. She looks at him and asks... who is that supposed to satisfy... to which he replies... Me.

I had similar problems. Size. All girlfriends always had problem with that: oh no it's too big!!!

why use 4 gen dead "adequate" fighter (in 2030 also lifecycle of air-frames/engines are et the end) if you get 6th one, better in every scenario?  

Because the 4th gen fighter is already paid for, so it is free, and the new avionics you are adding to it to keep it competitive are going into all new fighters too, so it keeps consistency, good for mass production, good for training, and good for keeping costs down...[/quote]
ok now lsst get back to realm of reality.

The Su-57s can go on the new carriers, and any 6th gen UCAVs can be deployed on both carrier types...

True, Russian small fighter is better for smaller ships though.    

so actually they need 3 to have almost 2 operational at the same time. Before 3 is launched Kuz will be dead.  

They need three carriers in total, so with the K they need two CVNs to achieve that... eventually the K can be retired and replaced with a third CVN.

one goes surely to North. I wonder if seconf one will risking go to Mediterranean+Somalia region?

You dont need something made of gold and the best. You need a good work horse thet you can afford.

They are not going to have thousands of carrier based fighters so there is no point in developing a whole new aircraft especially for the job, but of the land based aircraft to pick from it makes no sense to pick an old aircraft like a MiG-23... pick the newest and most capable and keep using what you have got until that is ready to replace it.

[/quote]

Tehre si no point do develop light  fighter? well but they made decison already they will  


this is only artist impression though bu cute

LMFS wrote:
By now it is not even close to being operational. It will come probably, but we are still far from that. Countermeasures will be developed and doctrine will need to be adapted. It is still unclear if these weapons will make a change in the kind of platforms used for air combat, maybe in the future fighters are substituted for transport planes with huge DEW and stocks of drones and/or missiles, who knows. So if traditional fighters are still applicable, these systems could be implemented on a Su-57. If not, the F/A-XX would be obsolete too, if ever developed at all.

So you think US navy will remains without any fighters after 2030s? there is constant change that's why you need constantly design new fighters/weapons too. Not to get stuck with 50years old tech because its cute      

2) when what?
Su-57K has been a recurring discussion of course, but there is no official confirmation as of now. But hope dies last you know

sure, on this forum. Nothing official tho.      

Differently to fictional F/A-XX and STOVL, the baseline model already flies. And the K is there.

K is there in 2022 (oops 2021 is fictional right?) Su-57 is in 2 pieces. Great  Of course Su-57 was till this year also fictional you know       MiG-35 is gonna be fictional too. The truth is you dont have anything yet in Russian navy atm.  

Still not clear how you want to meet the threats with less planes not better than those from USN or what the posture is going to be, if you can't meet them.

The truth si simple. You newer have a parity with Us navy. Ever. Thats why you need something to do assumed tasks but not to kill your budget (0.1 US one)  And your task is not fighting midway battles.

That's how financial restrictions helps to overcome megalomania.

This I agree. But a naval version of the Su-57, three or four carriers like the K but modern and good AWACS/AEW/Tanker solutions are not megalomania IMO. Maybe yes for UK but not for Russia.

I dont see any budget means for those ambitious plans till 2027, and IMHO unlikely after. BTW Su-57k is like a ghost to me. You saw it but nobody else did.

Mind VSTOL is approved officially unlike Su-57k. It dosent even exist in far far away plans.

We'll see...  

of course we do !

[/quote]
[/quote]

GunshipDemocracy wrote:So you think US navy will remains without any fighters after 2030s? there is constant change that's why you need constantly design new fighters/weapons too. Not to get stuck with 50years old tech because its cute      

They will have robust numbers of unparalleled & unmatched, freedom-powering multirole F-35Cs, together with upgraded F/A-18E/F (the plane piloted by Maverick!   ). Who could wish for something better?

K is there in 2022 (oops 2021 is fictional right?) Su-57 is in 2 pieces. Great  Of course Su-57 was till this year also fictional you know       MiG-35 is gonna be fictional too. The truth is you dont have anything yet in Russian navy atm.

Some basic semantics my friend: fictional is when you only see a CGI or even worse fan art. When you see actual pictures of planes flying and ships sailing it is called "real"  

The truth si simple. You newer have a parity with Us navy. Ever. Thats why you need something to do assumed tasks but not to kill your budget (0.1 US one)  And your task is not fighting midway battles.

You seem to love Midway. We just talk about the air cover you need to avoid embarrassing provocations or being ousted from a disputed area, without this you are realistically only going to operate in undisputed regions. I proposed a way to achieve serious deterrence against CSGs with minimum modifications to existing HW and with much smaller numbers and investment than USN

I dont see any budget means for those ambitious plans till 2027, and IMHO unlikely after. BTW Su-57k is like a ghost to me. You saw it but nobody else did.

You and Vlad must be really close if you got to see the detailed budget of the current armament program  

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:So you think US navy will remains without any fighters after 2030s? there is constant change that's why you need constantly design new fighters/weapons too. Not to get stuck with 50years old tech because its cute      

They will have robust numbers of unparalleled & unmatched, freedom-powering multirole F-35Cs, together with upgraded F/A-18E/F (the plane piloted by Maverick!   ). Who could wish for something better?

No they wont. F-35 will never will be and AFAIK never was planned to take all.
F-18 ~1400
F-18 Superhornet 500

not all are in US navy but F-35 was never planned for navy in such numbers.  BTW So far ordered 340. Even if they will double numbers is still nto even close satisfy USN needs.
I wake of  many years of delays and failing project they will be even less then planned. IMHO gets to attack functions where stealth and payload counts.  F/AXX will take over F-18 role as fighter at first.

Mavericks are now fighting mummies and kazansky  is too fat to fly      

K is there in 2022 (oops 2021 is fictional right?) Su-57 is in 2 pieces. Great  Of course Su-57 was till this year also fictional you know       MiG-35 is gonna be fictional too. The truth is you dont have anything yet in Russian navy atm.

Some basic semantics my friend: fictional is when you only see a CGI or even worse fan art. When you see actual pictures of planes flying and ships sailing it is called "real"  

]

I dont see any Su-57k flying and Kuz sailing till 2022 either.      

OK Suu-57k was real not CGI. This was once in fantasy of Krylov. This does count ?      

The truth si simple. You newer have a parity with Us navy. Ever. Thats why you need something to do assumed tasks but not to kill your budget (0.1 US one)  And your task is not fighting midway battles.

You seem to love Midway. We just talk about the air cover you need to avoid embarrassing provocations or being ousted from a disputed area, without this you are realistically only going to operate in undisputed regions. I proposed a way to achieve serious deterrence against CSGs with minimum modifications to existing HW and with much smaller numbers and investment than USN

Then 30 fighters is more than enough for task.  Perhaps even less. Syria is a heavy contested area and has 8 fighters max.  32 is an improvement by 400%      

I dont see any budget means for those ambitious plans till 2027, and IMHO unlikely after. BTW Su-57k is like a ghost to me. You saw it but nobody else did.

You and Vlad must be really close if you got to see the detailed budget of the current armament program  

Hmm I wonder where did you see any information about mega CVNs? I can see  now postponing and cutting most of programmes. not to mention that the only source of Su-57k  is  one three plastic models. not for Tamiya though.      


BTW Supreme Commander yesterday ordered development of new weapons (AFAIK qualitatively new designs) . Im not sure if Su-33 counts here      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:No they wont. F-35 will never will be and AFAIK never was planned to take all.  

The F-35 is not apt as a fighter? Go tell the allies and the USAF please, they will adore the news.

not all are in US navy but F-35 was never planned for navy in such numbers.  BTW So far ordered 340. Even if they will double numbers is still nto even close satisfy USN needs.
I wake of  many years of delays and failing project they will be even less then planned. IMHO gets to attack functions where stealth and payload counts.  F/AXX will take over F-18 role as fighter at first.

2 squadrons F-35C per CVN makes 240 planes. So if they ordered 340 (not checked it) they would have some spares
F/A-18 was from the beginning a strike fighter, not air superiority specialised fighter.
Sorry for the bad news, but if they have to get a substitute by 2030 based on the progress pace of F/A-XX they are royally screwed  
Only half intelligent solution would be the F-22/F-35 hybrid in naval variant but that would leave Boeing in a very bad situation...

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:No they wont. F-35 will never will be and AFAIK never was planned to take all.  

The F-35 is not apt as a fighter? Go tell the allies and the USAF please, they will adore the news.

not all are in US navy but F-35 was never planned for navy in such numbers.  BTW So far ordered 340. Even if they will double numbers is still nto even close satisfy USN needs.
I wake of  many years of delays and failing project they will be even less then planned. IMHO gets to attack functions where stealth and payload counts.  F/AXX will take over F-18 role as fighter at first.

2 squadrons F-35C per CVN makes 240 planes. So if they ordered 340 (not checked it) they would have some spares
F/A-18 was from the beginning a strike fighter, not air superiority specialised fighter.
Sorry for the bad news, but if they have to get a substitute by 2030 based on the progress pace of F/A-XX they are royally screwed  
Only half intelligent solution would be the F-22/F-35 hybrid in naval variant but that would leave Boeing in a very bad situation...

USAF, Navy and Marines cannot approve to put in service bad aircraft. So, F-35 is not a bad plane.But, it is underperforming, underpowered for a fighter, incapable to be real strike aircraft, it is prohibitively expensive and it is full of mechanical, electronical and software "gremlins". As everything that is meant to be universal, every special task cannot be performed on the same level. It has superior radar, potentially state of the art electronics once "gremlins' are wiped out" and AMRAAM missiles are excellent. But it cannot survive in combat with superior, equal in way of electronics, dedicated fighter. F-35 will be not more than adequate for some missions, and mediocre for some others. It may be a good plane, but it`s a disaster in way of economics, maintenance and logistics. poor value for HUUUUGE money!

kumbor wrote:
USAF, Navy and Marines cannot approve to put in service bad aircraft. So, F-35 is not a bad plane.But, it is underperforming, underpowered for a fighter, incapable to be real strike aircraft, it is prohibitively expensive and it is full of mechanical, electronical and software "gremlins". As everything that is meant to be universal, every special task cannot be performed on the same level. It has superior radar, potentially state of the art electronics once "gremlins' are wiped out" and AMRAAM missiles are excellent. But it cannot survive in combat with superior, equal in way of electronics, dedicated fighter. F-35 will be not more than adequate for some missions, and mediocre for some others. It may be a good plane, but it`s a disaster in way of economics, maintenance and logistics. poor value for HUUUUGE money!

I cannot agree more. F-35 had too many requirements to fit into one plane. Huge payload, VSTOL and stealth and great maneuverability. No nobody will give up F-35 but I am sure they wond be ordered in such numbers as foreseen before. F/A-XX will speed up significantly.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:No they wont. F-35 will never will be and AFAIK never was planned to take all.  

The F-35 is not apt as a fighter? Go tell the allies and the USAF please, they will adore the news.

they already know it is good for bombing low tech countries or fighting with low tech fighters as Su-33      

not all are in US navy but F-35 was never planned for navy in such numbers.  BTW So far ordered 340. Even if they will double numbers is still nto even close satisfy USN needs.
I wake of  many years of delays and failing project they will be even less then planned. IMHO gets to attack functions where stealth and payload counts.  F/AXX will take over F-18 role as fighter at first.

2 squadrons F-35C per CVN makes 240 planes. So if they ordered 340 (not checked it) they would have some spares
F/A-18 was from the beginning a strike fighter, not air superiority specialised fighter.
Sorry for the bad news, but if they have to get a substitute by 2030 based on the progress pace of F/A-XX they are royally screwed  
Only half intelligent solution would be the F-22/F-35 hybrid in naval variant but that would leave Boeing in a very bad situation...

wiki says: USN - F-35C 260 planned (80 on Marines land base ;-) .  For 10 CVNs 75 fighters each doesnt make numbers needed to replace all right?

F-18 shall be replaced by 2040s not 2030s. 2030s they will start the process. Same as Russians with Su-33/MiG-29k.
MiG-29 wasnt also designed as air superiority fighter either. On CVN you dotn need such. You need also strike platform to bomb land/sea targets.  Build hybrid F-22/F-35 so again risk spending billions for nothing?

F/AXX is on same level as MiG-41 or Russian 6gen fighter or VSTOL one. And more less same time they can be introduced.



As you like CGI here you have yet another one:

Isos wrote:

F/AXX is on same level as MiG-41 or Russian 6gen fighter or VSTOL one. And more less same time they can be introduced.

They are more talking about new f-18 and new f-15 than this thing.

F-35 that is manned has so many bugs that they are still working on it and they will work probably for a couple years more.

F/AXX is meant to be even more sofisticated and unmanned. It's not gonna be ready before 2040/2045 for sure.

Then is exact time when F-18 will be with drawn. First bet on F/AXX was made by 2030 but realistically around 2040 can go in numbers to Navy (its navy fighter). AFAIK unmanned is an option not requirement, same as Russian new fighters.

Realistically Russian MiG-41 or new VSTOL also will be ready by 2030s.2030 is max time for MiG-31 not to mention MiG-29ro Su-27

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7886

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7886

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:No they wont. F-35 will never will be and AFAIK never was planned to take all.  

The F-35 is not apt as a fighter? Go tell the allies and the USAF please, they will adore the news.

they already know it is good for bombing low tech countries or fighting with low tech fighters as Su-33      

not all are in US navy but F-35 was never planned for navy in such numbers.  BTW So far ordered 340. Even if they will double numbers is still nto even close satisfy USN needs.
I wake of  many years of delays and failing project they will be even less then planned. IMHO gets to attack functions where stealth and payload counts.  F/AXX will take over F-18 role as fighter at first.

2 squadrons F-35C per CVN makes 240 planes. So if they ordered 340 (not checked it) they would have some spares
F/A-18 was from the beginning a strike fighter, not air superiority specialised fighter.
Sorry for the bad news, but if they have to get a substitute by 2030 based on the progress pace of F/A-XX they are royally screwed  
Only half intelligent solution would be the F-22/F-35 hybrid in naval variant but that would leave Boeing in a very bad situation...

wiki says: USN - F-35C 260 planned (80 on Marines land base ;-) .  For 10 CVNs 75 fighters each doesnt make numbers needed to replace all right?

F-18 shall be replaced by 2040s not 2030s. 2030s they will start the process. Same as Russians with Su-33/MiG-29k.
MiG-29 wasnt also designed as air superiority fighter either. On CVN you dotn need such. You need also strike platform to bomb land/sea targets.  Build hybrid F-22/F-35 so again risk spending billions for nothing?

F/AXX is on same level as MiG-41 or Russian 6gen fighter or VSTOL one. And more less same time they can be introduced.



As you like CGI here you have yet another one:

I am in doubt if new MiG fighter will look like this. Russians turned down one engined airframes 30 years ago. Aerodynamically it has some similarities with MiG-29 with its joint fuselage/wings as lift surfaces. Maybe Yak-130 can be also rebuilt as the light fighter, with, say 1,5M speed and good climb rate.

kumbor wrote:
I am in doubt if new MiG fighter will look like this. Russians turned down one engined airframes 30 years ago. Aerodynamically it has some similarities with MiG-29 with its joint fuselage/wings as lift surfaces. Maybe Yak-130 can be also rebuilt as the light fighter, with, say 1,5M speed and good climb rate.

All depends on tasks and price they want to pay. Simple,mass produced light fighter can have one.

kumbor wrote:USAF, Navy and Marines cannot approve to put in service bad aircraft. So, F-35 is not a bad plane.But, it is underperforming, underpowered for a fighter, incapable to be real strike aircraft, it is prohibitively expensive and it is full of mechanical, electronical and software "gremlins". As everything that is meant to be universal, every special task cannot be performed on the same level. It has superior radar, potentially state of the art electronics once "gremlins' are wiped out" and AMRAAM missiles are excellent. But it cannot survive in combat with superior, equal in way of electronics, dedicated fighter. F-35 will be not more than adequate for some missions, and mediocre for some others. It may be a good plane, but it`s a disaster in way of economics, maintenance and logistics. poor value for HUUUUGE money!

I also don't think the plane is up to the current and future threats, but it is what US has chosen.

So, the main problem I see with it is not even that is an economic disaster, but its opportunity costs, in that it creates a huge capability gap for US and allied forces that will be very difficult to compensate, due to the massive investment in the program (both political and economic) and the length of Western development cycles, with the F-22/F-35 hybrid being a very clear sign that alternatives for the fast development of a high performance design are being sought after. But this is a gap that Russia should certainly take advantage of, also with their navy since it would allow to reach parity with USN in many regards with a fraction of the costs.

kumbor wrote:I am in doubt if new MiG fighter will look like this. Russians turned down one engined airframes 30 years ago. Aerodynamically it has some similarities with MiG-29 with its joint fuselage/wings as lift surfaces. Maybe Yak-130 can be also rebuilt as the light fighter, with, say 1,5M speed and good climb rate.

Do you know why? With reliability like that of F-16s I see no justification for this. Single engine is realistically one of the few cost drivers they can actually tap to reduce costs of a fighter. Modern avionics, multirole design and signature management are today almost a must so apart from size and number of engines there is not much potential me thinks...

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.php?t=8417