just curiosity here: do you have any data, tech info that proves your opinion or just you have a hunch ? hint: do you think Russian military and decision makers didn't to any analysis before making decision?
The F-35 and Zumwalt shows all the research in the world and it can still go wrong.
The marketing however suck. Instead of presenting it only with mig 29K and say it can carry something like 40 fighter+ 2awacs + some helicopter for search and rescue, they make a stupid list of mig, sukhoi, awacs not specified, tens of ka-27.
Actually it is rather clever... it is saying you could put it in service now with existing aircraft and not have to spend billions on new planes...
In politics there are no friends only partners. If Russia has alternative can close gas pipe to EU. Now they cannot.
BTW you've just said this last time
No that is not true... Russia has to keep in mind the interests of friends as well as partners... only the US shits where it eats...
Russia has plenty of alternatives to piping gas to EU... the could simply close them all down and say LNG only... they are still cheaper than the US, but Europe would pay rather more for their energy... which will make their products more expensive and Russian competitors more competitive...
if they will be competitive? They will but why on low end saturated markets? For TV sets is twilight of an era. But AR or holographic displays, 3D printers, genetic vaccines, AI commerce/medical systems, new materials, quantum computers , autonomous robots not?
TV was just example.
countries dotn hate Russia, elites have interests the rest is propaganda. Still to me no relation to bunch of large carrier
To secure your own global trade routes you need to have some level of power that can reach anywhere on those trade routes... independent of land bases.
The UK didn't become rich and then develop a powerful navy... it happens the other way around.
for the moment, but both Korean leaders already stated otherwise. Japan has no problem with sending via Russia and China nor India have to ask USA.
The US should not have a say... but it does because it has military bases in South Korea.... and soon there will likely be US bases in Poland and possibly Ukraine so the risk is there.
The other end is Germany or UK. Nobody in Poland, nor Belarussia nor Ukraine will stop silk road. All want to be on board. Their masters wont let them stop this. Too much money for west can be lost.
By the same logic they wouldn't be blocking north stream gas, but they would if they could... even when they could make money from it... look at Bulgaria...
Africans are poor because of India and China?
Africans have only been trading with India and China for a very short period of time compared with the centuries that Europe has been "trading".
Either you dont get that Asia is not USA or UK or you missed the point on purpose
Africa and central and south america have remained poor despite trade with the rich and powerful west. Asia has become wealthy DESPITE trade with the rich and powerful west.
Russias future is trade with Asia and Africa and central and south america.... but only token trade with the west.
Russian TAKRS had following set of tasks:
a) anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
b) ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
c) search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
d) detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
e) assurance of amphibious landing.
So basically air control and providing large numbers of helicopters to hunt for subs.
and navy didnt say where to take money from for those? if they got why not. Before this all stream of BS from navy there was discussion about either storm (100kts) or 30kts carrier nuclear posered. Parts standardized with Liders) . ~40ktons CVN can take enough fighters for doing tasks and is 2x cheaper then 70kts and 4 x cheaper than Shtorm.
A big carrier takes longer to build so its costs can be spread over a longer period... and of course if a 40K ton CVN actually could take enough fighters then why would they want carriers at 70K tons? Doesn't that indicate the fact that they actually want more aircraft than you are suggesting they want... but then what would they know?
stupid argument, you can do better thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup . If Russian ships are around they wont help an ally? That sthe reason for SCO
You said interests not friends... are you suggesting Russia would support another country breaking international law?
you didnt read my words did you? frame desoign 80s avionics early 2000s
Perhaps you don't know much about aircraft design... the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 have a new redesigned airframe made of all new materials and shaped to reduce RCS and all that crap, so the airframe design is not from the 1980s... or are you saying the Armata tank is a WWII design because it has a hull and an engine in the rear and a turret on top like all those WWII tanks did...
They can and they will but only if VSTOL is delayed and obsolete MiG-29k and obsolete and worn out Su-33 need to be replaced.
Except that the MiG-35 will be in service and will also be kept up to date with upgrades during its service life so when the VSTOL is "delayed", the technology they transfer into the naval MiG-29KRs will be near enough to being state of the art at the time.
designed in 1980s. Iranian F-5 also are brand new right?
Of course... technically it is brand new if produced in the last couple of years and of a design that has updated the original design to modern standards like the MiG-29KR has...
BTW 10billions Su-57 is ordered in 12 pieces? 833mnl$ per unit.
OK, you want to be a
about it... STOVL... they might have spent 100 roubles on it already but zero are ordered and zero are built so 100 divided by 0 is absurd number... 833 million per airframe is cheap in comparison.
why not? radar, electronics, engines, materials all is available. Production lines are working. Weapons are developed.
Don't you get it?
Think about making a normal plane.... then add high pressure pipes to deliver high pressure air to the nose and to the tail and to the wing tips and to put swivels on each end so that high pressure air can be directed in most directions so these puffer jets can keep the plane level... then put at least one very powerful engine in the aircraft that needs to be able to direct all its force down near the aircrafts centre of gravity... look at the Yak-36... especially from the side and think about what sort of flight performance it has because its purpose is not to take off and land vertically... its purpose is to be a competitive fighter aircraft... and looking at the Yak-36 that big rod out the nose is not for inflight refuelling... it is a high pressure air tube to try to keep the aircraft controllable in a hover...
Now think about this... all this high pressure tubing... any of it fails or gets damaged in combat and you can't land vertically... and with your tiny little carriers that means you can't land at all...
VTOL aircraft are shit... whatever the design is if you take out all that piping and those control nozzles and any lifting systems and just use conventional takeoff you end up with a much better aircraft.
The sort of engine power in a Harrier or Yak-38 and you should have a supersonic plane with rather good performance...
Because of you Freudian fixation about V I left it so you can foucs on short start.
Current Russian fighters are short takeoff...
AL-41F3/FU (izd 30) 180kn or NK-32 (not sure about perimeters of new version though) . sizeboth comparable but NK is heavier.
So basically engine power comparable to the engine of the Yak-41 that could not take off or land at Farnborough because it destroyed the runway surface...
same radar performance (yefim gordon) - 80km 3m2 before Zhuk MiG-29 had radar perhaps even worse, hud+helmet display, R77, R-27
Estimates... it never actually got a functioning radar.
BTW Su-33 in AA configuration has not much different.
Su-33 can have 12 AAMs of various types, while the Yak-41 with four fuel tanks wouldn't match the range of the MiG-33.
Speed 1800km/s,ceiling 15,500m. Yes there were fuel tanks possible.
1,800km/s is unlikely, and with four pylons carrying fuel tanks makes it a gun fighter...
That what numbers say.
The numbers can say anything they like... the actual prototype never actually achieved any of those numbers before it was cancelled.
OK fnally got it! Russian aerospace engineers, MiC, govt and Putin all are stupid and make decisions without analysis. lol1 lol1 lol1 but there are some vigilantes among us!
Drama Queen.
then VSTOL is more then enough
No.
For interception then speed and range are both useful assets... VSTOL has neither.
If VSTOL was that important then a Ka-52K could take off vertically and climb to 5km altitude and launch R-77s and R-37Ms at targets and then descend and land vertically and be rearmed a dozen times before needing refuelling...
oh yes MiG-35 with frame design 1980s in 2030s. Are you fan of oldies?
The MiG-35 has a well proven design shape that is aerodynamic and efficient.
Su-57 can do anything also replace Ka-31. Why not? costs doesnt matter, pace for landing neither.
If there are problems getting a lot of aircraft landed an aircraft can take off with full fuel and a buddy refuelling package and top up the planes waiting to land...
Or the Inflight refuelling model based on the AWACS aircraft could do it.
MiG-29k lines are closed too.
Duhhh... not it isn't... the MiG-35 shares the same airframe as the MiG-29KR so if you need some more it can produce as many as you want...
point here is: real war example (not imaginary one) proves that you all you need can be transported by small CVN
If this minor conflict is what you want to base your expeditionary force on then why bother at all.... the Syrian conflict didn't change at all whether the Kuz was off the coast or not... in a conflict out of range of mother Russia things would be rather different and a rather larger air group would be needed... and indeed a few extra AWACS aircraft would probably be useful too.
no midways so what battles?! real ones not imaginary. in Syria what battles?
You are a funny guy... I can't predict the future so Russia shouldn't need any military forces at all right?
numbers say 4 times cheaper. Do you have any other proving your opinion?
Numbers are talking to you and say 4 times cheaper... My opinion is that you need help.
I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.
Su-34 is in the F-111 weight class and way too heavy even for cat assisted take off.
Kuz arrester gear should already be fixed.
There is no reason why it would have to fly slow... Sentry AWACS cruises at pretty high speeds...
Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
I'm definitely a fan
Problem is that it would only look sideways... the purpose of AWACS is 360 degree down to the sea coverage...
I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.
So you want a brand new navalised Su-30 to replace the brand new MiG-29KRs?
Now, more than quarter of a century later, Ulyanovsk project can be used partially, but with many modern improvements and substantial changes.
But why?
Technology has changed.
They use a naval plane based on a 1980s land fighter because it is still getting upgraded and improved, but with carriers there is not need to base it on any previous designs.
Honestly Garry, it's not that a smaller carrier isn't possible, it's just that of the feasible designs presented, make that very unlikely, i wish there were more options, but here we are.
Anyway, the Navies already given their 70kT requirements, so let's hope the designers present something good.
Do you think the released photos of model carriers are for the Russian navy to decide to buy, to entertain foreign fans of military equipment, or to get foreign interest in their products?
I would suggest the latter, but of course I would also suggest that students and designers at these companies will be making designs all the time and that the ones that are not selected can be released because they would not be classified... I rather doubt we would see new designs they were seriously considering... we saw some alternative designs to Armata before we saw Armata, but we didn't see any losing designs before or after we saw PAK FA.
(We did see MFI and MFS prototypes like the MiG 1.42 etc and Sukhoi S-37, but we didn't see designs for the PAK FA until we saw it).
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
