Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Even if Yeltsin was interested, w/o the Gossplan & the Gossnab & 100s other entities across the FSU it couldn't be finished.
No, it's related here that only 15% of US CVNs were deployed in 2018. If the #1 economy doesn't deploy 85% of its CVNs, then how many the much smaller RF economy can deploy in a given year after building 2-3 CVNs?

eehnie wrote:Gunship Democracy, your comments are a collection of false sentences.

Quoting official MoD or even better deputy PM for MiC statemtns what is official BTW is false then OK. So it be in your world. But in domain of reality is the other way around

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).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:Gunship Democracy, your comments are a collection of false sentences.

You saw multiple times the cost of the F-35 for the US, you saw multiple times the real costs of the US aircraft carriers, and the estimations for the Russian aircraft carriers.

And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

Quoting official MoD or even better  deputy PM for MiC statemtns what is official BTW is false then OK. So it be in your world. But in domain of reality is the other way around

And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

You quote like now. Not quoting after all, because your false sentences do not resist to be next to the reality. This is the domain of reality.

There is no reason why it would have to fly slow... Sentry AWACS cruises at pretty high speeds...

Take-off & landing on a little, moving airstrip.
Not concerned about the handling in operation as long as its not too bad but you don't want it to get sluggish/finnicky landing/taking off.

I did say I had weight doubts about basing it off Su-34 but I'd been forgetting about Su-33UB (which also has to be somewhat heavier than Su-33, though as a CV trainer I guess it didn't need to carry arms), point was an airframe with 2 seats and load capacity for a useful AEW radar.

Problem is that it would only look sideways... the purpose of AWACS is 360 degree down to the sea coverage...

Tell that to all the countries who are buying AEW planes like Wedgetail & with the Swedish Erieye radar.

Certainly they have blindspots forward & aft but apparently its considered an acceptable limitation to get a relatively compact & aerodynamic mounting of a big radar.

So you want a brand new navalised Su-30 to replace the brand new MiG-29KRs?

I want an airframe for mounting a podded AEW for a STOBAR carrier.

Needs to be two-seat & have significant carrying capacity for a big enough radar & fuel load to be useful, I think that rules out a MiG-29 base.
A two-seat navalised Su-57 would be ideal but if such a thing ever comes it'll be a long way away so we can pretty much rule that out.

Krylov used what looks like Su-30s on the light carrier model & that seems like a good basis for making new-build 2-seat navalised airframes.
Presumably much of the Su-33 work would be directly applicable to that so development costs should be fairly low.
If you're making the effort to navalise Su-30 to make an AEW version you might as well make a bunch of fighter variant too.

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".

E. Africa been trading with India, SE Asia & China via Arabia long before the Europeans 1st sailed there:

For thousands of years Omanis have plied a sea-trading thoroughfare stretching north to Mesopotamia, east to India, and southwest to Africa.
https://archive.archaeology.org/9705/abstracts/dhow.htmlh

https://www.thoughtco.com/indian-ocean-trade-routes-195514
http://www.marhaba.qa/the-origins-of-the-dhow/

I had weight doubts about basing it off Su-34 .., point was an airframe with 2 seats and load capacity for a useful AEW radar.

If its APU tail sting & 1 pilot seat is removed, the weight & length of the Su-34 will decrease. The internal space behind pilot seats could be used for extra fuel tanks &/ AEW avionics. It already has canards like on the Su-33; it & the Su-30 can get those + folding wings,etc. added to replace the Su-33s.

An AEW version would be like the Ka-31 and send the data directly to the ship where it will be analysed and used to direct fighter jets to targets.

Cultivating & helping China as an ally is more important to Russia than following Western written international laws that the West itself manipulates, uses as a fig leaf to hide aggression, & violates ever since it's been on the books.
http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2018-09-28/1_1015_yougoslavia.html?print=Y

In the SC Sea, IMO the VMF will be happy to aid China even only by its presence, in a tit-for-tat against NATO aid to Ukraine, Israel, the Syrian rebels, & ongoing ships deployments in the Black & Med. Seas.
Meanwhile, US F-35B fighter jet conducts first-ever airstrike

Hole wrote:An AEW version would be like the Ka-31 and send the data directly to the ship where it will be analysed and used to direct fighter jets to targets.

That's what C4I is for. On QE2 Sea King choppers work as AEW. The diadvantage of chopper is ceiling (3km -250 km horizon, 8 km - 400 km radar horizon) and flight duration.

GarryB wrote:

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.

True but this is only part of the story.  Avangard or Poseidon prove they can be success as well. in every technology development is a risk but bigger risk is when you dotn move because something might go wrong. Military has special meaning. It is to defend you all resources (human too) thus pushing tech boundaries is a continuous work.

The UK didn't become rich and then develop a powerful navy... it happens the other way around.

It's not what historic sources say. Most famous example criminal Francis Drake started campaign to steal Spanish gold (stolen form Indians) .  First RN ship to fight Spanish fleet had 100 tons displacement and 22 guns. Royal Navy started to grow powerful 100 years later.  After Bank of England was founded and money was accumulated to build navy.

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...

But they didnt. Nord Stream 1 was build and Nord Stream 2 is being build. Turks gonna resell Russian gas too. Recently both Merkel and Erdo  have shown  Us middle finger.

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.[/quote]

That's why they could carry upto 36 VSTOL planes  (including deck )?      

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...

MiG-29  first fight was1977/
MiG-29M fist flight 1986  Right ! this is completly new airframe  only  32 years old    

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-29%D0%9C

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...

then why all countries are developing new fighters? what's wrong with them?       its enough to endlessly upgrade biplanes

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.
[/quote]

lets continue your logic shall we? 3 Su 57 (nt even navalized) and you got CNV de Gaulle class      

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
+++
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...

Do you suggest that any current fighter is as simple as Fokker VII ?  or technology doesnt change ?

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...
[/quote]

Yak 141 had 152kN engine neither 180 nor 250kN one
And stop BS about inability to VTOL will you?

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.
[/quote]

Zhuk didnt function?!       Radar was based on zhuk and actually was developed.

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.

No data about this. Do you have any? Programme was cancelled well in 90s short before Russia default in 98. It had nothing to do wth quality of fighter

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.
[/quote]

finally you admitted that you are        not everybody has guts to publicly admit it damn  

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.
[/quote]

IT hasn't proven anything yet. But true after 20 years of development was ordered in whooping 6 pieces. For acrobatic team      
This will be surely good place for old classic design      

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...
[/quote]

frame? (hook? frame strengthen? anit corrosion paint? CV landing electronics? ) so MiG-35 is carrying 500-700 more kgs in land version      

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?

dont twist my words,tay focused: what is the difference between 30 or 50 fighters (or 24 Su-57) in local (even not conflict) scenario?

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.  

Good! help me with calculations then. I am happy to see yours! Dont be shy      

An AEW version would be like the Ka-31 and send the data directly to the ship where it will be analysed and used to direct fighter jets to targets.

Is that how Ka-31 works? I think you'd still want an onboard operator though, Ka-31 seems to have one.

The guy in the Ka-31 is just putting the radar system on (unfolds the antenna and so on.), data is send to the ship.

The Corps is on track to turn the MV-22 into a refueling tanker
The VMF could have similar tiltrotor tankers for its STOVLs, tiltrotors & helos.

Just wait a few more years & it'll appear!

MiG-29M fist flight 1986 Right ! this is completly new airframe only 32 years old

If you are going to be a dick about it there is no point in a proper discussion... the MiG-29M from the 1980s has nothing at all to do with the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

then why all countries are developing new fighters? what's wrong with them?

The only further upgrade today for the MiG-35 design would be stealth, and lets see what that is actually worth when new radar designs enter service in the next couple of years...

lets continue your logic shall we? 3 Su 57 (nt even navalized) and you got CNV de Gaulle class

Except one Su-57 is worth more than any piece of shit Frog carrier... Su-57 should be compatible with Zircon.

Do you suggest that any current fighter is as simple as Fokker VII ? or technology doesnt change ?

Modern aircraft are complex, but are not so fragile as a VSTOL fighter with high pressure gas tubes through their entire structure that are critical to its capacity to hover.

Yak 141 had 152kN engine neither 180 nor 250kN one
And stop BS about inability to VTOL will you?

There is not such thing as a Yak-141, the programme name was Yak-41, and its 152kN thrust engine destroyed the runway at Farnborough... if that is the case do you think a 180 or 250kN would do better? Of course it would damage it even more if directed downwards... which means no main engine deflection downwards during takeoff or landing... ie conventional aircraft takeoffs and landings on conventional runways not covered in heat treated tiles.

Zhuk didnt function?! Suspect Suspect Suspect Radar was based on zhuk and actually was developed.

How did they develop it? The Yak-41 barely flew... there was no money.

No data about this. Do you have any? Programme was cancelled well in 90s short before Russia default in 98. It had nothing to do wth quality of fighter

It was cancelled just after a heavy landing on a carrier ruptured a main fuel tanks and the second prototype burned... the heavy landing was an attempted vertical landing where hot exhaust gas was ingested into the main air intake and the main engine stalled...

frame? (hook? frame strengthen? anit corrosion paint? CV landing electronics? ) so MiG-35 is carrying 500-700 more kgs in land version

MiG have said the MiG-35 will be fully carrier capable.

Is that how Ka-31 works? I think you'd still want an onboard operator though, Ka-31 seems to have one.

Data processing is done on a nearby ship...

Ka-31 is Airborne Early Warning... a radar in the sky. What they actually need is an Airborne Warning And Control... that collects radar data and processes it and turns it into commands... vastly less data transmission, and vastly more useful and less conspicuous.

The VMF could have similar tiltrotor tankers for its STOVLs, tiltrotors & helos.

How?

They don't have any tiltrotors...

GarryB wrote:

MiG-29M fist flight 1986  Right ! this is completly new airframe  only  32 years old

If you are going to be a dick about it there is no point in a proper discussion... the MiG-29M from the 1980s has nothing at all to do with the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

then why all countries are developing new fighters? what's wrong with them?  

The only further upgrade today for the MiG-35 design would be stealth, and lets see what that is actually worth when new radar designs enter service in the next couple of years...

lets continue your logic shall we? 3 Su 57 (nt even navalized) and you got CNV de Gaulle class

Except one Su-57 is worth more than any piece of shit Frog carrier... Su-57 should be compatible with Zircon.

Do you suggest that any current fighter is as simple as Fokker VII ?  or technology doesnt change ?

Modern aircraft are complex, but are not so fragile as a VSTOL fighter with high pressure gas tubes through their entire structure that are critical to its capacity to hover.

Yak 141 had 152kN engine neither 180 nor 250kN one
And stop BS about inability to VTOL will you?

There is not such thing as a Yak-141, the programme name was Yak-41, and its 152kN thrust engine destroyed the runway at Farnborough... if that is the case do you think a 180 or 250kN would do better? Of course it would damage it even more if directed downwards... which means no main engine deflection downwards during takeoff or landing... ie conventional aircraft takeoffs and landings on conventional runways not covered in heat treated tiles.

Zhuk didnt function?!  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect Radar was based on zhuk and actually was developed.

How did they develop it? The Yak-41 barely flew... there was no money.

No data about this. Do you have any? Programme was cancelled well in 90s short before Russia default in 98. It had nothing to do wth quality of fighter

It was cancelled just after a heavy landing on a carrier ruptured a main fuel tanks and the second prototype burned... the heavy landing was an attempted vertical landing where hot exhaust gas was ingested into the main air intake and the main engine stalled...

frame? (hook? frame strengthen? anit corrosion paint? CV landing electronics? ) so MiG-35 is carrying 500-700 more kgs in land version

MiG have said the MiG-35 will be fully carrier capable.

Is that how Ka-31 works? I think you'd still want an onboard operator though, Ka-31 seems to have one.

Data processing is done on a nearby ship...

Ka-31 is Airborne Early Warning...  a radar in the sky. What they actually need is an Airborne Warning And Control... that collects radar data and processes it and turns it into commands... vastly less data transmission, and vastly more useful and less conspicuous.

The VMF could have similar tiltrotor tankers for its STOVLs, tiltrotors & helos.

How?

They don't have any tiltrotors...

For quite a long time already I am asking myself if this is topic on future aircraft carrier or on its aircraft!!!???

They don't have any tiltrotors...

Not now, but they r working on it & we r talking about the future, right?
http://www.aif.ru/techno/technology/zachem_vertolyot_skrestili_s_samolyotom
https://nplus1.ru/news/2018/09/03/tiltrotor

“Technology of stealth does not make sense. No one will look for you with the help of radar - except for those who are sitting on the ground. And so they will cope with stealth. There is no stealth for large ground radars,”...
https://hi-tech.mail.ru/review/istrebiteli-pyatogo-pokoleniya/#a08

Or those on ships. Not many Su-57 will be ordered for the VKS & they may never be navalized. The 6th/7th gen. fighters will be ready if & when a CVN is ready.

For quite a long time already I am asking myself if this is topic on future aircraft carrier or on its aircraft!!!???

The design of the aircraft to be used will dictate what carrier options are possible.

With STOVL aircraft you can get away with smaller carriers, but in my opinion it is like converting a Mini into a limousine... a limo is supposed to be comfortable and luxurious but it is expensive, but trying to make it small and on the cheap and you end up with something silly and embarrassing.

With bigger aircraft then a bigger carrier makes more sense, but just because you develop STOVL aircraft does not mean you can't have a bigger carrier too.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
“Technology of stealth does not make sense. No one will look for you with the help of radar - except for those who are sitting on the ground. And so they will cope with stealth. There is no stealth for large ground radars,”...

well it depends how do you understand role of stealth. Stealth is not invisibility but low visibility. Why armies still use camouflage uniforms is there are infrared scopes? why tanks are painted if they anyway can be spotted? it always helps a bit... same with stealth. I believe that new fighters will optimized less for stealth but more for maneuverability (drone mode), high speed supercuise , lognrange (i.e. efficient engines) and payload.

Or those on ships. Not many Su-57 will be ordered for the VKS & they may never be navalized. The 6th/7th gen. fighters will be ready if & when a CVN is ready.

[/quote]
I agree with VSTOL. Borisov said thet first fighter then CVN. Su-57 is surely potent fighter but I dont see the need to navalize already expensive fighter with large size which is much more needed to roam Russia borderlands. As for length f series I think that RuAF decided to have initial low rate prod. for 3 main reasons:

1) to fully test Su-57 phase II
2) to wait until fighter is fully tested, with full spectrum of weapons and there is a really need (so far Su-35 is enough for all threats)
3) thus save resources now by postponing full production for other projects

GarryB wrote:
The design of the aircraft to be used will dictate what carrier options are possible.

With STOVL aircraft you can get away with smaller carriers, but in my opinion it is like converting a Mini into a limousine... a limo is supposed to be comfortable and luxurious but it is expensive, but trying to make it small and on the cheap and you end up with something silly and embarrassing.

With bigger aircraft then a bigger carrier makes more sense, but just because you develop STOVL aircraft does not mean you can't have a bigger carrier too.

wow ! ow you're talking like a human being without VSTOL prejudices

Well as for mini and limo good example. Do you know why limo is expensive? because is available to few. Most people drive Hyundai or Honda to have reliable and affordable car.

kumbor wrote:

For quite a long time already I am asking myself if this is topic on future aircraft carrier or on its aircraft!!!???

hmm perhaps I'm wrong but is there any CV without fighters? if you have doubts just ask moderator

GarryB wrote:
If you are going to be a dick about it there is no point in a proper discussion... the MiG-29M from the 1980s has nothing at all to do with the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

I didnt find much about it, would be appreciate to learn more about it. Then what and when was changed comparing to 80s ?MiG-29M frame?

then why all countries are developing new fighters? what's wrong with them?  

The only further upgrade today for the MiG-35 design would be stealth, and lets see what that is actually worth when new radar designs enter service in the next couple of years...

Would you answer my already couple of times asked question: why all countries prefer to build new fighters if upgrading old is so fine idea?      

Do you suggest that any current fighter is as simple as Fokker VII ?  or technology doesnt change ?

Modern aircraft are complex, but are not so fragile as a VSTOL fighter with high pressure gas tubes through their entire structure that are critical to its capacity to hover.

VSTOL is more complex but not "fragile" that's your phobia not reality. 6g fighter is  same level of complexity complexity and "fragility" . Yet both Russia & US are developing them.

Yak 141 had Yak-41, and its 152kN thrust engine destroyed the runway at Farnborough...

3 times I've already asked - 0 links with source provided  by you. So we stop this ad nauseam mantra here.

if that is the case do you think a 180 or 250kN would do better? Of course it would damage it even more if directed downwards... which means no main engine deflection downwards during takeoff or landing... ie conventional aircraft takeoffs and landings on conventional runways not covered in heat treated tiles.

stop repeating ad nauseam same mantra, will ya? nobody is going to do continuous VTOL on unprepared locations. VTOL is required by navy mostly. Space on ships is scarce.
BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not  using of TV?

Zhuk didnt function?!  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect Radar was based on zhuk and actually was developed.

How did they develop it? The Yak-41 barely flew... there was no money.

If barely flying means making barrel rolls , climbing as astonishing rate ?- then yes  (Aviation Week & Space Technologies about Farnborough ). Results were  good but then  navy and AF wanted more and more functionalities. 1987 was approved plan for low rate initial production in Saratov plant 292.  Factory tests to be started on  1987 and state on 1988.  In 1991 before crash ~90% of tests were completed. True no money killed many projects. Su-47, MiG-1.44 to. MiG-29k appeared only because of Indians not because it was so great fighter.

It was cancelled just after a heavy landing on a carrier ruptured a main fuel tanks and the second prototype burned... the heavy landing was an attempted vertical landing where hot exhaust gas was ingested into the main air intake and the main engine stalled...

True. But how about this: PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction.  Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.

frame? (hook? frame strengthen? anit corrosion paint? CV landing electronics? ) so MiG-35 is carrying 500-700 more kgs in land version

MiG have said the MiG-35 will be fully carrier capable.

and same guy said that MiG-41 will be produced as from 2025th, didnt he?      
Navalized fighter weights 500-700 more. Then did he tell potential customers that this is already navalized and heavier fighter or he was just bullshiting potential customers? like they have no  experts on their own.  

Ka-31 is Airborne Early Warning...  a radar in the sky. What they actually need is an Airborne Warning And Control... that collects radar data and processes it and turns it into commands... vastly less data transmission, and vastly more useful and less conspicuous.

yeah in 70s-80s data transmission was suspicious indeed. Not in 2030s tho. You see AEW&C can be realized in many ways, IMHO chopper is worse than drone. Both ceiling and duration fo flight makes drone a better option.

The VMF could have similar tiltrotor tankers for its STOVLs, tiltrotors & helos.

How? They don't have any tiltrotors...

They actually do. UAV Fregat already has working proof of concept. VDV requested own tiltrotor (perhaps will be competing with high speed helo).
Long before any CV is gonna be  launched tilltrotor can be reality.

Look what we have here  

Russia's ship design bureau comes up with catamaran aircraft carrier concept

The manufacturer stated that the ship’s underwater part is the project's 'key distinguishing feature'

MOSCOW, October 2. /TASS/. The Krylov State Research Center has come up with a fundamentally new design concept of what may become Russia’s future semi-catamaran aircraft carrier, the center’s spokesman told TASS.

The model of a future non-nuclear multirole aircraft carrier was presented for the first time at the Army-2018 forum at the end of August. The proposed project has no name yet.

"The semi-catamaran design of the ship’s underwater part is the project’s key distinguishing feature," the spokesman said.

Normally catamarans have two parallel hulls and a superstructure platform connecting them. The proposed semi-catamaran hull will resemble a dovetail, bifurcating toward the stern.

The company’s spokesman said the new design pattern’s main advantage was a large flight deck (as wide as that of heavy aircraft carriers) and smaller displacement. The flight deck area is a crucial factor for the number of planes the ship can carry.

"An average displacement ship is capable of carrying a full-scale air wing," the specialist said.

No V-shape hull aircraft carriers have been built so far.

Parameters

The Krylov Center said the proposed aircraft carrier’s water displacement will be 44,000 tonnes, length - 304 meters, deck width - 78 meters, draught - 8.5 meters, full speed - 28 knots, and cruising range - 8,000 miles. The ship’s air wing will consist of 46 aircraft: 12-14 Sukhoi-33 fighters, 12-14 MiG-29K/KUB fighters, four early warning and command aircraft and 12-14 Ka-27 helicopters.

Russia’s only medium class aircraft carrier The Admiral Kuznetsov having a far greater displacement (59,000 tonnes) carries the same air group - up to 52 planes and helicopters.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1023982

This would explain the big divergence between the size of a conventional flight deck and the one of the new light carrier proposal. Very good and deserving of credit to innovate in CV configuration after some many decades of rather unchanged designs