they would be if there weren't any other modern/newer planes on CVNs & in AF squadrons.
The MiG-29KR is a newer and more modern aircraft... it is nothing like the MiG-33 (Mig-29K)... which was a single seat aircraft the same as the Su-33 .
The F-14 remained in naval service long after the machinery and tools to make them was destroyed and served along its replacement the Hornet for quite some years... just like the Su-33 is served with its replacement MiG-29KR.
I have seen no information suggesting when the K goes back to sea that they wont continue to use both aircraft.
The introduction of the MiG-29KR which can be converted to two seat easily enough as needed also replaced the Su-28 carrier training aircraft.
The USN/MC/AF has/will have F-18E/Fs, F-35s & F-15E/Xs.
F-22s were supposed to replace the F-15 but turned out to be a failure so the F-35 was developed to replace them instead and it was too expensive and not actually good at anything so they put the F-15 back into production.
The F-14 was replaced by the F-18 which was supposed to replace both the intruder and the F14 and it had to because all the tooling and production for the F-14 was destroyed, but then the F-35 was going to replace everything including the Hornet and Harrier and the it was going to be used together with the Hornet as a stealthy strike platform while the Hornet was the fighter... if the F-15 is replacing the F-35 on land then there is nothing to replace the F-35 at sea, but it is pretty clear that the F-35, and F-22 are failures at the very least...
In fact the F-35 is the biggest failure, they are supposed to be making 3,500 of them and they are already making F-15s to replace them?
The were originally going to make 1,500 F-22s, then it got cut in half to 750, then 189.
but there was no other plane they could get their hands on then & in the end it wasn't working as they expected.
Wouldn't be the first time a customer bought a product super cheap from a customer and had problems that the customer could not help them with and the maker had received no money for the purchase... why would they help?
50-50. the F-14 didn't stop the F-18 development.
The F-16 and F-18 are a generation after the F-16 and F-18 and were intended to be used together with their previous gen stablemates.
That is why the F-16 and F-18 were specifically designed as multirole fighter bombers.
yes, but the F-15X vs. F-15E = F-18E/F vs. F-18C/D- the legacy fighters r failures now & that's why they r being repaced by their deeply modernized successors. The F-35 didn't live up to expectations, so it's a failure.
You are misunderstanding failure.
A Failure is... lets make 1,500 F-22s and 3,500 F-35s, but not make anything like that of either aircraft and replace them.... they are failures... they need to be replaced.
The Su-33 is not a failure... it was only ever intended as being a naval fighter... which is what it achieved.
They didn't make a lot, but they didn't need a lot and never intended to make a lot.
They made what they wanted and stopped.
To replace something it has to be better... that does not imply that what is being replaced is a failure... it just means there is something better.
If, as u said, the Su-34 isn't suitable for navalization, & since it's related to Su-33 & has some of its features,
It is in no way related to the Su-33.
The Su-33KUB was a potential upgrade that used side by seating as used in the Su-34, but it was not an Su-34 in any way or form... it was over ten tons lighter for a start and was actually a similar weight to the Su-33... hence the same undercarriage is used.
then the Su-27's navalization into the Su-33 is also a failure;
The navalisation of the Su-27 and use as the only fighter on the Admiral Kuznetsov for the last 30 odd years is a success... it was only in the last 5 years that a replacement has been introduced and used... in many ways the MiG-29KR is a multi role fighter bomber like the Hornet, and the Su-33 has been their F-14, but the Su-33 does not need the missile performance of a Phoenix, nor the radar capacity of the MiG-31 because the west has nothing like the Backfire or the Kh-22M missiles... Just Harpoon... which R-27s and R-73s are just fine.
in fact, the VMF prefers the MiG-29Ks instead.
What is not to like... smaller, lighter, cheaper, and shorter ranged, which means less likely to be out of range when needed.
Cheaper to buy with India paying for production and tooling to be set up.
during its design phase, it was intended that it would be also suitable for operations on ships.
No it wasn't.... otherwise they would not have needed to develop the MiG-29K (MiG-33) for the job which was based on the MiG-29M of the time that were both fixed single seat aircraft of 1980s design and not related to the current MiG-29M and MiG-29KR which are completely new designs.
it was designed as a naval deck fighter, but came out so good that the AF wanted & got it too.
The naval versions of the MiG-29 and the Su-27 show the F-15 could probably have been navalised too... if they knew what they were doing.
there is a lot less difference between Su-33 & Su-34 than between F-15 & A-4. Pl. kick the habit comparing apples & oranges!
The idea that you can take an old design and just keep upgrading it with new stuff is stupid is what I was point out and the A-4 clarified that point best... it was a very good little naval strike aircraft... in many ways the naval equivalent of the F-16, but without the digital internal structure.
if at all; she may have a civil war &/ break up before a CVN could be built & fielded, repeating the Ulyanovsk CVN fiasco.
Or the pirates inc. company of the United States of America might have a civil war and break up and in destroying itself the rest of the world wont need armies and navies and air forces any more and the rest of the world can live in peace and harmony as brothers and sisters.
Probably it only makes sense for big aircraft. To what extent they can be common to several types would need to be seen at the time of designing.
Wheels already work well for all aircraft on Russian carriers, and also become useful if they have to land elsewhere on conventional runways that don't have skid based support systems.
Much faster, automatized, automatic fixing of the plane, able to go in any direction (360 deg) and turn on the spot
Much faster... must have enormous amounts of power to accelerate such large heavy objects on skids... the friction would be enormous in terms of turning in any direction...
Every plane would have one and they could coordinate their "traffic" to save a lot of time and labor by moving many planes in parallel without crew.
But they presumably stay with the ship when the aircraft gets airborne... what do they do... line up near the landing area for the plane to be lifted onto them after they land via cable arrest system?
The handling of the aircraft and the TO aid are not necessarily related.
You suggested the idea as a replacement for EMALS... wouldn't a couple of small electric towing vehicles and everything having a tow bar or shoe make more sense and be easier and cheaper and simpler?
Yes pretty much. Sorry if the word skid was not properly chosen, I am not a native speaker. They have electric motors and wheels (yes wheels!) and Li-ion batteries, no big energy needs. They need to navigate, that is already a reality in many industrial facilities by means of beacons and other navigation aids.
So what you are suggesting is just some unmanned versions of what they already use except you want one for every aircraft...
Sure, within the given limits. In wartime you want fast sortie generation, not a total chaos on the deck.
You do understand they have rules and ways of doing things that apply during peace time and in war.
If they change the rules for a war type situation then things can become more confusing rather than less confusing...
All the activities at the magazine, hangar and deck are working full speed.
That is all they can hope for.
Electromechanical is the other option, I don't exactly know the details but it is meant in contrast to electromagnetic.
Possibly stored energy in a fly wheel type set up.
Have seen such a system in a bus for inner city use.
The biggest problem for a bus is that they are always accelerating and stopping all the time and it is very energy intensive, so what they do is they put a very very heavy flywheel in the vehicle together with an engine, so when they are accelerating they take energy from the fly wheel and the engine, but when they slow down they put energy into the fly wheel and use braking systems.
It means they transfer energy to the fly wheel during braking that they can recover during acceleration taking the load of the engine... improving acceleration and reducing the strain on the engine.
For an aircraft carrier a fly wheel could be accelerated by the propulsion system of the carrier, or just electrically and that could help drag and aircraft to get it airborne... you could take as little or as much energy as you need... the propulsion system of the ship can spin it up to full speed while the next aircraft is being attached.
That is quite possible indeed...
You need to really go through an idea before you can get an idea of whether it is a good idea or not... and ironically even bad ideas that don't work can often lead to solutions to totally different problems where their bad features don't matter and their advantages make a real difference... in fact make something that wouldn't work normally suddenly quite viable...
Don't know until you try and fully flesh things out though.
Up to you.
Main limit of the radars at the ships and the reason for the existence of the AWACS is radar horizon. That is 500 km for a plane flying at ca. 10 km altitude, there is no way of going around that unless with ionospheric reflection for very long wavelength radars like Konteiner.
But a new radar might be able to synthesise its frequency from a much broader band range... with the antenna built into the leading edge of a wing and the trailing edge of a flying wing it might be able to operate rather higher up than 10km.
Besides super long range radar could be used to detect long range aircraft and missiles flying at medium altitude to extend their flight range, plus high flying hypersonic threats where early detection is important. Its primary use will remain detecting threats down to sea level near the carrier group and any threats to ships and carriers that are present.
MiGs play no role in a typical CBG engagement. The detection of the enemy carriers, ships, aircraft and subs depends on AWACS/AEW/ASW aircraft, otherwise the fleet is blind beyond radar horizon and extremely vulnerable to enemy air power or long range AShM.
Wasn't it you that once suggested that with the amazing new radars their ship based fighters have that there would be no need for AWACS platforms on their carriers in the future because they could see with their radar just as well as an AWACS aircraft could...
A MiG-29KR has a good radar... soon to be perhaps replaced with the new AESA radar developed for the MiG-35, plus it has IRST and potentially a range of targeting pods, and unlike the AWACS the ability to dash out to 1,000km range from the carrier to inspect a blip on a radar if needed.
It sensors can provide full target information to all the other friendly aircraft operating there along with all the ships and subs too, which might use that information to target threats too.
Defending in its practical, working interpretation means sinking the enemy before it attacks.
Given the opportunity, but if the surface group has a job and the carrier is spending all its time wandering off in different directions hunting carriers, it might end up failing at its primary job.
Same happens in land, that is why a continuous barrier of radar detection is created, in which the needed overlapping is created so that no enemy can get through or launch before being detected.
Those radar outliers at sea would be vulnerable to attack or just being bypassed, and don't add a huge amount to the defence... but would be a warning that an attack might be in progress... sending platforms to investigate might be a distraction to weaken your defence and the real attack might be coming from a different direction... essentially what I am saying is that long warning times are good but having your assets all projected forward towards the threat means a smart enemy can bypass you forces and attack from another direction while getting you to send away your fighters on a wild goose chase.
Having shorter ranged fighter that hang around your carrier make sense... having some long range fighters makes sense too of course.
Fighters overflying the fleet cannot effectively fend off a massive salvo of hypersonic AShM. That is the type of future threat the VMF needs to prepare for.
Massive salvos of hypersonic threats will be deal with using S-400 and S-500 missiles and perhaps lasers and directed energy weapons.
Fighters will deal with manned and unmanned enemy aircraft and standoff munitions as well as being airborne radars that can pass a remote air picture to ships who can add their missile resources to the battle via the eyes of the aircraft.
It would not be bad if the kinematics of AWACS and AEW were better than what they are, but the option of not having those planes is worse.
Even if the Russians are conservative and only have Hawkeye type aircraft themselves... the enemy being able to attack it from 400km range with new AAMs.... say Meteor-M that is not to say the incoming missile wont be detected and could be jammed, decoyed or simply shot down.
Wing folding is a disadvantage without any further reason that the footprint on board, if it can avoided it would be great.
The MiG-29KR is an 8.5g fighter... is half a g really a problem?
Would think if there is a turning dogfight and naval carrier aircraft has made a mistake or the enemy is beating his missiles meaning a gunfight is going to happen...
I would think making the wings too small so more aircraft can fit on a carrier could lead to worse consequences than a slight reduction in g resistance.
The comment is that, as said above, the airwing allows to attack beyond the reach of your surface launched missiles and has a flexibility missiles do not have. Naval strike is therefore a crucial mission, not only A2A roles.
CAP can be routine, but strike missions normally need a lot of planning and to provide a useful loadout of relevant weapons you need to know what you are hunting...
No, UCAV will sneak in the same way, be it low level or not, as deemed best. The only thing that interests from the weapon in the end is the warhead, the rest (propulsion, airframe, electronics) is an enabler that you have no need to destroy in every attack.
Tracking a UCAV will lead your enemy to your carrier... not something likely to have with a cruise missile.
Of course, the first wave is high risk, against AD and to degrade military capabilities of high level vs highly protected targets. Missiles are fully justified in that case. Afterwards, cheaper approaches are used. And given that Russia is not thinking mainly in decapitating regimes abroad, the high end land strike weapons are even less necessary for the kind of missions a carrier group would engage in. Good to have, but to be used sparingly.
Cruise missiles can carry cluster munitions too... cratering munitions for runways, anti armour and anti personnel... I would expect they could programme them to attack a few targets if needed... they have a cluster bomb with 10 x 50kg HE cluster munitions... a 400kg warhead with 8 x 50kg cluster munitions that can be launched upwards and come down by parachute could be used against multiple targets if needed.
A cruise missile using optical guidance to fly straight down a runway at 800km/h at 4m height throwing up cratering munitions as it flys.... would have saved a Vulcan mission in the Falklands war.... even if you use 4 at once in two waves of two side by side down the runway... one starting at the start and the second starting half way down... to ensure good coverage.