Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion wrote:It means the same as "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". In other words, don't plan on getting something that can only be done after certain steps. Since u can't skin a live bear, it must be tracked & killed 1st. Certain people think that it's a done deal that the VMF will have 70K T. CVN. The real world doesn't work this way.

agreed I was jut winding you up,no harm meant tho

Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight.

The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months. As for the B,

The next software upgrade includes weapons, and allows 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B

“Flying at 400 knots and pulling 4.5 g’s in this fighter is difficult because it wants to do so much more,” Miller said. “Tactically we are rarely going to be flying the aircraft at less than 400 knots.”
http://aviationweek.com/blog/pilot-reaction-flying-f-35b

Who Cares About the F-35: This Is Why Russia Doesn't Fear American Weapons https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-f-35-why-russia-doesnt-fear-american-weapons-29342

Their STOVL will be like Niva SUV, & a lot Le$$ costly.

LMFS wrote:

I dont think either that VSTOL fighter will be shipborne only. Just my educated guess.

This would make little economic sense and we have not heard anything about a Russian equivalent to F-35 but who knows what will be decided in the end. Mind you, not all MoDs decisions are correct and they are changed often.

sure, this one though ws on demand of the Supreme Commander and decision was made upon primary risk assessment. OR because Putin favors my posts over yours and Gerry's




Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs

Kuz originally could take 24-30 Su-33? ekhm with this number you want to fight on air dominance?    

Against what enemy, in what numbers? Exchange rates count. If with my Flanker based naval fighter I can keep your STOLV fighters at arm's distance and shoot them down while they cannot reach me, I am not going to need many planes you know

oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know

interceptor role should be covered by whatever plane is chosen and this missile would be very valuable as the Phoenix was for the F-14. Platform-wise both T-10 and T-50 are compatible, the later including internal carriage. But given the altitude and speed delta, it is quite possible that smaller MRAAM would do. I would not spare the more expensive missile in a naval fight were capital vessels are at risk though.

Well there is no need to spare but its better to take 8 x 175 kg R77 ~200kms then 2x37 ~300kms. or if you really need long hand use K-175 (400kms). But you dont build 60ktons carrier and invest billions on AWACS and again billions for emals, and navlzation of Su-57 just havewhat?

slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?

Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?

Yes unless when you actually need to fight  

dogfight - then yess

? I mean BVR

actually BVR (then we dotn talk about Su-33 anymore) must "see" F-35 before F-35 shoots back. Russian fighter also has to see other fighter to shoot right?
So either R-77 or ARAAM-120 have similar capabilities.

At least a superior fighter will have better exchange rates against the opponent and allow to partially compensate the exorbitant numerical superiority of USN. That is why a naval Su-57 would be important, US is not expected to field anything comparable in the next 20 years. Would the F-22/F-35 hybrid address this potential capability gap of their naval aviation too??

With ratio 10:1 unlikely it would  make any  difference

Sorry, who would make this 10:1?

like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?

Well this means in short - smaller fighter more units on CVN. No need to over anlyze.

We can agree that the smaller the better. Now if you want to throw some numbers you need to go into the details.

-life cycle costs
-fulfilling assumed tasks

I canot recall that Russia in their doctrine set tasks of bombing foreign lands vis CVNs. For fleet point defense is enough 20-30 fightrs. Syria war 20-30.  Yes well I got it !!!

you dontneed a workhorse that does its task. You need prestige!!!  not performance. You dont need Honda Civic you need Mercedes A klasse  

Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

Apparently you need 1k ton per plane, in typical layouts. I guess this can be improved with automation and better design / materials / manufacturing.

So why Ford 100k is taking only 70 fighters on board, Nimitz 106kyons up to 90 with helos Dont you think they are well automated and carrying planes significantly smaller than Su-33? The truth is hard to hide: the bigger fighter the more space it takes.

 Decision makers in MoD are not ready yet apparently.

true, we are exchanging blows opinions only

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight.

The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months.

I am sure thet between all hypes as bets fighter in the world and no way ti's gonna fly there is lots of space for upgrading parameters if needs arise. But in secret I'll tell you that there is a secret society of VSTOL-haters here

Their STOVL will be like Niva SUV, & a lot Le$$ costly.

Niva 2 wont be as cheap I'm afraid

The MiG-31s r too big CVNs, but they could be deployed from Russia or nearby friendly airfields to help protect the CBGs.


Interceptor variants of the TU-22M &/ the SU-34 may also appear.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months. As for the B,

The next software upgrade includes weapons, and allows 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B.

Yes, I know they can go supersonic, unsurprisingly since they have an engine that generates 40.000 pounds thrust. The F-16 makes 2 M with an engine developing 28.600 lb so you can imagine the difference in drag between both. Its top speed is way below F-22s cruise speed... try to control engagement against a fighter with that speed / range advantage and on top of that, flying 5 km higher, good luck. For USAF you can say they have the F-22, but who will call navy when opponents bring capable air superiority fighters to the battlefield?[/quote]

A fighter going Mach 1 & above is to catch with, or get away from the area & escape from some1. But dogfighting at such speeds, even if it was possible, is going to destroy today's planes. That's why future UCAVs will take over were human pilots won't be able to withstand high G forces.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:sure, this one though ws on demand of the Supreme Commander and decision was made upon primary risk assessment. OR because Putin favors my posts over yours and Gerry's

You clearly have him eating out of your hand  

Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs

Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years.

oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know

Hahaha, that is a very relevant point  

Well there is no need to spare but its better to take 8 x 175 kg R77 ~200kms then 2x37 ~300kms. or if you really need long hand use K-175 (400kms). But you dont build 60ktons carrier and invest billions on AWACS and again billions for emals, and navlzation of Su-57 just havewhat?

slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?

R-77M is already operational?? The K-175  does not really exist as far as I know. But of course as already said the MRAAMs launched from a faster platform flying higher have much more range and could allow to dominate the encounters even without LRAAMs

If they go for a carrier is not because of a slight performance increase. Compare the capabilities of an America class and a Ford carrier, nobody in its right mind would try to counter the later with the air wing of the first. As much as I agree than some aspects of carrier operations should be simplified to allow for a reduction of the displacement of vessels, I don't think a simple LHA is going to be a match for the performance of a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier the size of the K anytime soon.

actually BVR (then we dotn talk about Su-33 anymore) must "see" F-35 before F-35 shoots back. Russian fighter also has to see other fighter to shoot right?
So either R-77 or ARAAM-120 have similar capabilities.

E-2D have L-band radar, specifically because they want to be able to detect VLO planes. If you have OTH and other early warning + AWACS + shipborne radars you are likely at least to detect the incoming planes even far way, allowing your fighters to inspect the threat and clear it before it comes too close to the fleet. On the other hand, missiles with active seeker can be guided to the airspace sector where the threat is present and only then activate their seekers, so as far as I know you don't necessarily require an X-band lock from the fighters radar before launch.

Opposing fighters will see each other soon but the engagement windows of their missiles and ROE will determine when missiles will be launched. That is where kinematics of the missile carriers are crucial, because the side dominant in that regard can launch sooner, stay out of the opponent's engagement window while giving midway guidance updates to the missiles and in case of need disengage in case of danger. This does not produce exchange ratios proportional to force size but rather very skewed in favour of the side with the faster, higher flying, longer ranged fighter with big payloads.

Don't understand what you mean referred to R-77 and AMRAAM

like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?

How many of your LHAs would you need to match the air power of 3 US type CVNs?? Like 20??

-life cycle costs
-fulfilling assumed tasks

I canot recall that Russia in their doctrine set tasks of bombing foreign lands vis CVNs. For fleet point defense is enough 20-30 fightrs. Syria war 20-30.  Yes well I got it !!!

you dontneed a workhorse that does its task. You need prestige!!!  not performance. You dont need Honda Civic you need Mercedes A klasse  

There is no prestige without credible capability. Otherwise on your first deployment some AShM end in the hands of some non-state proxy, or a regional vassal does something "irrational" (downing of the Su-24 in Syria comes to mind) and your bluff is called out.

Don't know what Russian doctrine says but the first and only deployment of the K was to do precisely that: bomb foreign lands. And of course, fleet point defence is enough with 20-30 fighters, unless like in the case you presented above you face 3 CSGs, then you are screwed I guess.

Carrier-related topics from an interview with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau from February this year:

https://tass.ru/interviews/4965950

— In your opinion, in what direction will evolve carriers?

— First of all should improve the automation of the ship to improve its electronic equipment, should improve protection (e.g., anti-aircraft weapons), the habitability for personnel who will live on this ship. Will improve our aircraft fleet and all the necessary devices and mechanisms that this fleet would operate. Together with the development of our science and technology should "grow" and these ships.

Large or small they are — the question is not obvious. But whatever it was, seaworthiness of a small ship is much lower than a big. But seaworthiness is directly dependent restrictions on aviation.

— We are with you in previous conversations, talked about the fact that the desire of the fleet to "cram" in the ship as many features as possible, in General, indestructible...

The carrier must be a carrier. It is not necessary to dump all you can

And today, unfortunately, there are such trends. We are trying to resist them. Our opinion on this issue has not changed — the carrier must be a carrier. It is not necessary to dump all that you can. If the ship is large, this does not mean that it needs to carry everything. Usually by the aircraft carrier are a few ships that solve all the associated tasks. It's his business to run and to take back the aircraft. In addition, the saturation of the different systems and weapons will automatically lead to appreciation of the project. The hull, hardware is pennies compared to the cost of components, electronics, weapons. As soon as we start something at him to "push" the price begins to rise. This is the simple argument for those who wait on the aircraft carrier ship all at once.

— Last year, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov officially declared about the establishment in Russia of the aircraft vertical takeoff and landing, and ships under them. You, as the designer, reported about such plans?

We have not seen any materials on this issue. The last aircraft vertical takeoff and landing Yak-141 was made in the late 80-ies of the last century for the "Admiral Gorshkov". Nothing new we haven't seen.

...


— Is it true that the first Soviet aircraft carrier could be created in 1950-e years? If the Bureau has completed this development, perhaps the appearance and capabilities of Soviet and Russian aircraft carrier fleet would be very different?

— Yes, the project 72 was developed in 1943 on the initiative of the then commander-in-chief of the Navy Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov. Our office conducted a study predescessor of the project, the Yakovlev design Bureau and the Tupolev was working on their own versions of the two types of carrier-based aircraft, and presented them to the people's Commissariat of the Navy. The review took place in August 1944, however; feasibility designs were not approved.

— When the idea of a nuclear aircraft carrier?

— In the 1960-ies, when were studied the project 1160 and 1153. Naval institutions have conducted scientific research proved that the carrier needed to create groups in remote areas of the World ocean. Work began on the project in 1160. There participated, besides shipbuilders, the firm Mikoyan, Sukhoi and Beriev, who worked on the aircraft anti-submarine defense. We considered eight variants of the ship of project 1160, with different tonnage from 40 thousand to 100 thousand tons, with different power plants. All this considered, the Ministry of defense, the Politburo.
Aircraft carriers have always been very expensive construction

But carriers have always been very expensive construction. In September 1973, Dmitry Ustinov suggested as alternatives to the project 1160 to build a modernized anti-submarine cruisers of the type "Kiev". In 1972, the first of them was launched.

— For the creation of the project in 1153 with nuclear power called himself Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov?

— Yes, but again at the top this case has been suspended, although such ships with a displacement of 70 thousand tons have already started to modernize the black sea plant in the Ukraine. Bought a 900-ton Finnish cranes, which stand there still.

It was suggested to revise the technical design of the ship 1143М. So there were four Soviet aircraft carrying cruiser, which became the "Admiral Gorshkov", and then "young Vikramaditja". And then there was the project 11435 "Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Varyag". Ideas that were laid in the project in 1153, and in some measure they used.

But still most sad fate of the seventh aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk".

— Yeah, but there's certainly nothing could be done. (In 1992, fully formed body of an aircraft carrier due to the lack of funding was cut for scrap — approx. TASS)

— Sergey, in concluding our conversation, I ask you to speak on the topic one way or another are constantly discussing in the online space. Sad to read that we have lost all competence in shipbuilding, and can't afford a real aircraft carrier.

— My personal opinion is — we can normally, as the saying goes, slowly build ships of any size — aircraft carrier, amphibious assault, and any other, in the presence of desire and certain possibilities. Of course, it's not cheap, but the money is not being spent for six months, and spent 10-12 years. If the price of an aircraft carrier to sort by year, then, in principle, everything is possible.

Another thing is that today the mass of both supporters and opponents large ships. Whose point of view wins, to tell now difficult. But perhaps it is time to put the fundamental point in these differences.

LMFS wrote:
You clearly have him eating out of your hand  

Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser      

Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs

Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years. [/quote]

It does actually. Challenges are being faced  all the time. You just need to build economically viable ships that fit purpose. Im afraid if you'd start to build mammoth-ware you'll end up with obsolete design still on shipyard. After years.

oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know

Hahaha, that is a very relevant point  

meh unrelated  same if I said Maus was better      

slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?

R-77M is already operational?? The K-175  does not really exist as far as I know.

R-77M-1? like5 years iike 180 BD not yet tho. But doest it really matter which model?  There will me always missiles with similar performance in both sides. Light and heavy fighters can carry the alike.

I don't think a simple LHA is going to be a match for the performance of a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier the size of the K anytime soon.

and what in which characteristics? in ASW capabilities? for transport or perhap ship grouping point defense? Kuz is 60ktons  Wasp 40ktons / Juan Carlos I 26ktons
LHA is an universal ship.  Sea-control is one of roles. If you go CV you still need build something for amphibious forces (and eventually ASW ships) .  


Did you see any bombings in Syria by RuAF? how many KABs-500 were carrying Su-34 in most of sorties?  1-2?  and what was radius of action? 300-400kms?

E-2D have L-band radar, specifically because they want to be able to detect VLO planes. If you have OTH and other early warning + AWACS + shipborne radars you are likely at least to detect the incoming planes even far way, allowing your fighters to inspect the threat and clear it before it comes too close to the fleet. On the other hand, missiles with active seeker can be guided to the airspace sector where the threat is present and only then activate their seekers, so as far as I know you don't necessarily require an X-band lock from the fighters radar before launch.

OK then we agree that not a fighter but missile is a key here?

Opposing fighters will see each other soon but the engagement windows of their missiles and ROE will determine when missiles will be launched. That is where kinematics of the missile carriers are crucial, because the side dominant in that regard can launch sooner, stay out of the opponent's engagement window while giving midway guidance updates to the missiles and in case of need disengage in case of danger. This does not produce exchange ratios proportional to force size but rather very skewed in favour of the side with the faster, higher flying, longer ranged fighter with big payloads.

Kinematics- if you have 1,8 of 2Ma is so different in ~180kms?

Don't understand what you mean referred to R-77 and AMRAAM

roughly same class

like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?

How many of your LHAs would you need to match the air power of 3 US type CVNs?? Like 20??

+++
unless like in the case you presented above you face 3 CSGs, then you are screwed I guess

and you said thet this is not about Midway scenario.        They are not designed for this task as well as those you'd love to see. Russia cannot respond with same resource scale. So always will be less and smaller CVGs forces. If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.

Don't know what Russian doctrine says but the first and only deployment of the K was to do precisely that: bomb foreign lands. And of course, fleet point defence is enough with 20-30 fighters, .

Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.

LMFS wrote:Carrier-related topics from an interview with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau from February this year:

interesting thx

Besides projecting power ashore, they may also be sent to help confront the reformed US 2nd Fleet in the N. Atlantic & the Arctic Oceans, the banal Med. Sea, i.e. the classic Soviet TAKR mission.
https://www.axios.com/us-navy-reinstates-fleet-to-explore-russian-military-52aecf7b-73cd-4ead-832a-f888a924a4a6.html
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/24/cno-new-2nd-fleet-boundary-will-extend-north-edge-russian-waters
https://www.rt.com/news/437001-us-second-fleet-arctic-atlantic/
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2161337/us-navy-re-establishes-atlantic-fleet-russian

Perhaps it'll be their main role. Most stationary targets (inc. ships & subs in port) can be hit by Surface/Sub/ALCMs from Med., Black, White, Red, Caspian, Baltic, Okhotsk, & Japan Seas with less risk & inve$tment, leaving less targets to CVN AWs.

Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser      

Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CV  

Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years.

It does actually. Challenges are being faced  all the time. You just need to build economically viable ships that fit purpose. Im afraid if you'd start to build mammoth-ware you'll end up with obsolete design still on shipyard. After years.

Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so. That means, being capable in the mid-long term of building vessels carrying robust numbers of high performance multirole fighters and their supporting assets.

How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you

R-77M-1? like5 years iike 180 BD not yet tho. But doest it really matter which model?  There will me always missiles with similar performance in both sides. Light and heavy fighters can carry the alike.

I know R-77-1, not that M-1. It of course matters what model because you want to be capable to shoot the enemy while you are still not in range of their missiles. USAF or USN do not have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M. I agree that both sides pursue the range extension of their MRAAMs and they do not seem too far away in that regard, with the possible exception of the Meteor for which Russia does not seem to have an analogue yet (no news of R-77-PD or Izd. 180 BD), though It could be said that at least they have an alternative in the R-37M, which is way better even when also much bigger.

and what in which characteristics? in ASW capabilities? for transport or perhap ship grouping point defense? Kuz is 60ktons  Wasp 40ktons / Juan Carlos I 26ktons
LHA is an universal ship.  Sea-control is one of roles. If you go CV you still need build something for amphibious forces (and eventually ASW ships) .  

The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.

Did you see any bombings in Syria by RuAF? how many KABs-500 were carrying Su-34 in most of sorties?  1-2?  and what was radius of action? 300-400kms?

Once you have created a huge "no enter" zone around your fleet with heavy fighters you can indulge in having other fighters of lesser capacity doing the bombing yes. But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.

OK then we agree that not a fighter but missile is a key here?

No we don't agree, both are very relevant since they constitute a weapons system. Above you say yourself that MRAAMs of both sides are always going to have similar characteristics, in such conditions it would be the fighter that would make the difference with its kinematic contribution among other things.

Kinematics- if you have 1,8 of 2Ma is so different in ~180kms?

Don't exactly know, this would need to be calculated with very concrete data considering burning time of the rocket engine, end-game dynamics, acceleration of the aircraft, launching altitude etc. But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)

and you said thet this is not about Midway scenario.        They are not designed for this task as well as those you'd love to see. Russia cannot respond with same resource scale. So always will be less and smaller CVGs forces. If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.

It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.

Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.

Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Besides projecting power ashore, they may also be sent to help confront the reformed US 2nd Fleet in the N. Atlantic & the Arctic Oceans, the banal Med. Sea, i.e. the classic Soviet TAKR mission.
https://www.axios.com/us-navy-reinstates-fleet-to-explore-russian-military-52aecf7b-73cd-4ead-832a-f888a924a4a6.html
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/24/cno-new-2nd-fleet-boundary-will-extend-north-edge-russian-waters
https://www.rt.com/news/437001-us-second-fleet-arctic-atlantic/
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2161337/us-navy-re-establishes-atlantic-fleet-russian

Perhaps it'll be their main role. Most stationary targets (inc. ships & subs in port) can be hit by Surface/Sub/ALCMs from Med., Black, White, Red, Caspian, Baltic, Okhotsk, & Japan Seas with less risk & inve$tment, leaving less targets to CVN AWs.

The fight for the Arctic is on

LMFS wrote:The fight for the Arctic is on

you 've heard this only now?   you should have listened to the Supreme Commander you'd know already


@Tsavo

not possible but for sure. Not only Arctic if important as a resource zone but there is there one of 2 main SSBN patrol terrains and possible way for B-2 to sneak in.
The second one is in Far East.

Not sure about Mediterranean tho. I mean about second priority

Last but not least - I love TAKR mentioned there

LMFS wrote:

Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser      

Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CV  

I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept      

Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so.

agreed then      

How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you

Kizhal too heavy indeed  but why not shipborne Zircons?  1000km range.  Way beyond reach of any fighter ot their AShM. Either you add 2x8 UKSK-M or use Husky below or Gorskhov next to you. .

have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M.

yup you're right AIM-152 was cancelled I ' ve missed that      
it was to have almost 2x Phoenix range

The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.

That's the rationale behind this you can send LHA to Arctic ASW/CV role. Amphibious/transport: to kick some terrorists/rebels'   butts during personnel evacuation. Also humanitarian   humanitarian situation.  

But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.

    Why you think that covered with  smaller fighters they would be harassed?  BTW were there ever more then 8 fighters same time?
S-400 - That's why you need Something like 2 Gorskhovs with Redut  group.

or xtra (my speculation) use own 2xUKSK-M with wit 64 Redut AAD (S-350)

. But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)

and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead

2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead

3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

Its simply a game of numbers not thrones.  Unlike Danerys you cannot count on magic and dragons

If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.

It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.

Extra cover?  of course         but why  smaller fighters  cannot perform this task?!

Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.

Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.[/quote]

glad we  agree again