They need at least 1 new true carrier be it with skijump or catapult with su-57K or the new mig they are talking about.
They seem to want two different types of carriers... as shown by their money spending... they wanted a small Mistral like helicopter carrier to support landing forces, and they have the Kuznetsov and want something slightly bigger with a slightly bigger air wing... they want that to provide air cover for their surface ships... which is totally understandable... most military forces want to operate with air control... it simply makes things easier and safer being able to spot enemy threats from greater distances and to be able to deal with things further away from your surface vessels.
Agree harrier carrier would be useless but it would be good that their future helicopter carrier could carry 3 or 4 VTOL jets to use them for patrol around the fleet with a new radar and data link with redut to allow air defence missiles to hit above radar horizon.
Ka-31/35 and Ka-52K could already do that without needing to develop a whole new 5th gen fighter.
Maybe they could upgrade 10 or so old yak-38. A new jet will be expensive since they won't have 60 fighter per carrier and certainly not 10 carriers like US.
The Yak-38 was worse than useless... at best it could carry four R-60 short range AAMs and had no radar and crashed an awful lot.
Mig29K shares a lot with mig-35/29M so its production is cheaper.
I agree... if they are going to build helicopter carriers... whether they are based on the Mistral design or something else if they were ever going to use it in a real landing they would have the Kuznetsov operating there too in support, so it makes more sense using MiG-35s to support the landing than to take 3-4 helicopters off your helicopter carrier to put next to useless VTOL fighters on their that don't currently exist.
If it is yak that make the plane it will be even more expensive since they have build like 0 jets last 30 years.
Well they have been making Yak-130s, but no front line fighters that need modern self defence avionics suites or combat radars etc etc.
Well there is a clear desire for a LHD capability to the point of constructing 2* Mistrals.
Seems you equate a harrier carrier to a helicopter carrier...
They wanted a vessel to land Russian Naval Infantry forces... they did not want a half arsed little piece of shit shoe box with crap VTOL targets on it.
IMO if planned at the start a significant air capability is possible in a 40-45Kton LHD (Wasp/Vikramaditya size).
US claims 20 F-35s can operate off a Wasp in carrier mode so at least that should be possible & is significantly useful.
Russia hasn't got any F-35s, and even if they did WTF would they want that many fixed wing aircraft supporting a landing?
Helicopters and landing craft are vastly more valuable than some show pony piece of crap carrying 6 AAMs... expecially for the 200 million dollar a pop you would be paying for them because you would only be making about 60 planes tops.
There is significant flexibility benefit since each ship can always provide carrier, helicopter carrier or landing capability vs specialist ships where the relevant specialist may be in maintenance when needed, especially when talking about numbers as low as 4 or 6 max, split between 2 fleets.
Flexibility is nice, but usefulness is rather more important.
Just because a new carrier could carry useless VTOL fighters doesn't mean you would ever want it to.
Now they can sell COMPLETE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR the YAK-41 to China & build the next generation STOVL follow on together.
According to western media the Chinese already have the complete documentation on the F-35, so why bother with the Yak-41 docs?