Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy wrote: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?

Two squadron fighters per CVN, not 75 units. That would be 480 fighters in total, clearly they ordered a 50% fighter air wing in form of F-35Cs + spares. When the reckoning day comes, they will find themselves having two options: increase numbers of F-35Cs or upgrade the F-18s. There is no time for developing something new unless they use this hybrid thing to skip some development steps, and even then I am being optimistic that they could navalize it somehow (airframe of F-22 was not designed for carrier operation). It really doesn't look good for USN.

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?

So now is 2040 and not 2030... well at least this is more realistic. That leaves your Su-57Ks reigning in the seas for twenty years, what is to dislike for RuN?
On CVN you don't need air superiority? Ok...  

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.

For the STOVL there is not even a CGI, that puts it substantially behind in terms of schedule      

As you like CGI here you have yet another one:

Yeah some guy took a MiG-29, edited a single engine onto it and then placed black areas pretending to be intakes in some random place, so? It looks Russian but makes no sense.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

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.

Impossible! Nowadays there is no weapon system, especially aircraft, that can be simple, mass produced and cheap. Even prop Tucano, if new, costs some 10M$

10x24 is 240 not 480

Reading comprehension buddy... he said:

"Two squadron fighters per CVN, not 75 units. That would be 480 fighters in total, "

Which you posted yourself... 10 x 24 x2 = 480...

BTWcheck this out russia russia russia here you got on Kuz

The air group would cost more than the ship it is based on... pathetic... of course if you wanted a real fighter you could put Ka-52Ks and just use the F-35s for ballast.

Apparently F-35 squadrons will be 10 planes each.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

hoom wrote:Apparently F-35 squadrons will be 10 planes each.

then we have 200ok 3 squadrons is 300 fighters... you need 750 at least...

My bad I wrote 2 squadrons where I wanted to write 4 squadrons fighters per CVN... if those are 10 planes each you need "only" 400 planes + spares, not 750!!

15-18 years is no time to develop a fighter       in which country?

F-35 result of JSF result of JAST started in 1993... 25 years to date and still in need of debugging...

20 years?! 2030sis first time Russia can have anything after Kuz. i just wonder why Russia needs extremely expensive (2x price) Su-57 in 18 pieces per CV?

K ready in 2021-22, roughly same period tests of izd. 30 should end. And then it is simply impossible that you know:
- how many Su-57K would eventually fit in what prospective Russian carrier
- how cheap or expensive it would be compared to the future STVOL plane.
One thing is wildly speculating as we do, but at least try to find some arguments. This exercise of you is too much even for me

BTWcheck this out       here you got on  Kuz

I know this fan art. Should it be proof of something?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Laser and Microwve will never matrialise?

I said exactly the opposite actually...

hoom wrote:Apparently F-35 squadrons will be 10 planes each.

VMF squadrons are 12 aircraft per deployment.

If the USN has 11 CVNs, 2 will be in maintenance/refit/refueling at any given time, so they need squadrons only for 9 CVNs. Even then, not all of them r at sea at the same time, so the # of squadrons could be less. The USMC planes may also fill in for any fighter shortage.

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already lol1 lol1 lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote:

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already  lol1  lol1  lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

for LFMS they are

For Eehnie too.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Laser and Microwve will never matrialise?

I said exactly the opposite actually...

ohh rlyyy?  Imust have misunderstood you      

Not only you misunderstood me but completely missed the places where I explicitly expressed my opinion on DEW    
Here, just the sentence above to those you misleadingly quote:

LMFS wrote:

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 lol1 lol1 lol1
   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.

BTW guided ?      

Previously, the MiG-35 will use laser weapons, said the president of the United Aircraft Corporation Yuri Slyusar . According to him, on the plane from six to eight the number of suspension points has been increased, which will make it possible to use, among other things, prospective weapons, including laser weapons.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201703071309-x2lj.htm

Yes, a journo understanding things with his arse is a proof of the MiG-35 going to be equipped with blasters at any moment now
Do you want to bet on that happening?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote:

meh it's cute but I got it you need a hard proof . Like plastic models. 3 Krylov models to be exact, so this is confirmed 3 times already  lol1  lol1  lol1
On next Krylov plastic model there were no Su-57k AFAIK.

Those models can't prove they wil build the shtorm carrier that is their own product, let alone the naval su-57 that is not their business at all.

for LFMS they are

WTF? Are you kidding me? When did I say that? On the contrary, I have said that those models are proposals done without any link to MoD and therefore are proof of exactly NOTHING.

Isos wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:for LFMS they are

For Eehnie too.

Like alwyas you are far of the reality.

My favourite option is to see the main variant of the Su-57 able of using the future Russian aircraft carrier.

Naval variant of the Su-57 would be a second option for me. Valid but a little less interesting.

You and others can bury the real news with tons of non-sense, but this will not change the reality, it only makes the topic a non-sense.

And while you do it, the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Deck fighters/ground attack planes can be land based like the A-4/-6/-7/-8s & F-4/-14/-18s, but the land based F-16/-15/-22s can't be CVN based, as their navalization isn't worth the trouble.
The same can be said about the SU-57, as others pointed out. It has ~the same J-20 (which isn't being navalized) & F-111 dimensions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Specifications_(F-111F)

If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the Su-57 could be suitable for a 70K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN & to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.
Naval versions EF2000 & JAS-39s were also offered, but they r still only on paper & in plastic:  

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe, however this is now thought to be substantially more given the Typhoons's "unfriendly" design in terms of adapting the airframe to suit sustained naval operations. If the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is completely uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter

https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/gripen-m-for-indian-navy/
http://mdbp.org/sa-news/saab-offers-sea-gripen-carrier-borne-naval-fighter-jet/

W/o the CAT, they still will need stronger & heavier landing gear & fuselage.

..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Deck fighters/ground attack planes can be land based like the A-4/-6/-7/-8s & F-4/-14/-18s, but the land based F-16/-15/-22s can't be CVN based, as their navalization isn't worth the trouble.
The same can be said about the SU-57, as others pointed out. It has ~the same J-20 (which isn't being navalized) & F-111 dimensions

If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the Su-57 could be suitable for a 70K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN & to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.

First let me say for the umpteenth time that I don't know whether Su-57 can or will be modified for carrier operations. This is simply speculation about theoretical possibilities for RuN, not some kind of assertion that it WILL be done. But for the sake of being factually correct, have to disagree on what you state above. I agree that an aircraft that has not been designed for carrier operation will be more difficult or even practically impossible to adapt. Loads to airframe and landing gear, wing folding, angle of landing approach, min. speed come to mind as significant design requirements that differ from CTOL related ones. But when you make your case for the Su-57, you make some IMO incorrect assumptions:

> The Su-27, with similar overall design to the Su-57 and originally designed as CTOL but afterwards adapted successfully for STOBAR operations voids your first argument
> Su-57 is notably smaller than the F-111, which besides was planned to be a carrier aircraft
> If Su-33 is carried on the Kuznetsov (64k max displacement), how would it be a problem to carry a smaller plane (Su-57) on a bigger ship of 70k?
> How many could be carried on a 100k CVN? F-14s had roughly the same size than Su-57 (both heavy fighters, F-14 being slightly heavier even when 4G was generally lighter) so the later would be (if equipped with a folding wing) roughly equally suitable in terms of footprint and on-board numbers.
> Size may be one of the elements that limit navalization, but is far from being the only one as you suggest. J-20 not being navalized proves nothing in regards of Su-57. Looking at the J-20 it seems to me its landing gear is not apt (too short and too weak). Not sure about the low speed performance too. J-31 (already with double front tire and robust main gear) makes more sense as naval fighter IMHO.

Well, there is a reason they r not restarting production of SU-33s; if they were so good, why not do that instead of betting on MiG-29Ks?

Su-57 is notably smaller than the F-111, which besides was planned to be a carrier aircraft

It's ~3 tons lighter but their dimensions r very close, pl. see relevant links.
The F-111 was for CV/Ns but it didn't work as well as the F-14.
On a 70K ton CVN, there'll be even less space.

I didnt post it lol1 lol1 lol1 240 vs 750 is ekhm not enough even if they will increase by 100% is still will be a half f needed deck fighters.

At the top of this page you clearly posted it as a quote of what he said and then in your calculations you ignored what he said...

Ture that's why Kuz will slowly die with obsolete MiG-29k and Su-33 unless new light fighter will be build. And new fighter will be build

Why?

If Russia sends a carrier to support Russian intervention in South Africa... exactly why will the Su-33 and MiG-29KR be obsolete?

Do you think F-35s will try to shoot down Russian jets?

Assuming Russia has been asked to assist in South Africa... as a country that can offer military assistance, but without all the strings and bullshit attached like with requests to the US or UK, where they get all the contracts to rebuild etc...

If Venezuela asks for a carrier group to visit because they feel threatened by the US, it will be the presence of the ships and aircraft that are of value... don't think of the aircraft on a carrier as being a one on one comparison with other fighters... what they are there fore is to extend the sight and reach of the ships... they are not there to dogfight their way through NATO...

F-35 result of JSF result of JAST started in 1993... 25 years to date and still in need of debugging...

Confusing the word debugging with restarting... the future seems to be F-35 avionics and systems in the F-22 air frame... so VSTOL is probably out the window...

I know this fan art. Should it be proof of something?

It shows how powerful the F-35 is... it is already carrying missiles better than Russian missiles.... it is carrying an Indian missile... Su-57 was too expensive for India, so why don't they try an F-35 instead...

If the USN has 11 CVNs, 2 will be in maintenance/refit/refueling at any given time, so they need squadrons only for 9 CVNs. Even then, not all of them r at sea at the same time, so the # of squadrons could be less. The USMC planes may also fill in for any fighter shortage.

Actually the cost of deployment means most of their 11 carrier groups are not deployed most of the time...

According to this:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

One is "forward deployed" and three more are deployed and the rest are not in use... five in maintainence, and one in post deployment and one in pre deployment workup...