Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.
Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.
Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.
Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.
2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial - compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense. Welcome back to TAKR assumptions...
You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.BTW Why would you assume Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?
Yes, I don't know. In any case its performance must be top of the line or they will lose at that point the possibility to match their potential opponents. Either a conventional AWACS like the E-2 or a tilt-rotor will be newly developed so Russia has some freedom of choice there and I guess they will aim for the best.AWACS is not level of detail in strategy docs but surely this or another way will be implemented. If Russians dont want to build large CV with catapults then very likley tiltrotor and or drone is gonna perform AEW function...
See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.
Long or short range is relative to your rivals of course.
F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.
Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.
Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.
Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?
But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.
These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.
it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails. The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way. But effect is the same.
And in any case, MiG-35 uses the same airframe of the K and M with some further refinements, especially in terms of avionics:
https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-35/The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35dThe MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters structure is based upon the following achievements obtained on the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2 aircraft:
– increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;
– increased fuel capacity, in-flight refueling and possibility of using as a tanker;
– airframe & main systems anti-corrosion protection technology which meets the standards developed for carrier-based aircraft thus simplifying fighters operation in tropical weather conditions;
– significantly reduced radar signature;
– three channel fly-by-wire control system with quadruple redundancy.
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fightersNew unified family of the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters
In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.