Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha
the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above  so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.
well perhaps you can do this technically. Why not? My question would be what why? you already have Zircon securing ~ 1000km radius around your fleet without need for development of costly, redundant, risky
IMHO Kinzhal is a stopgap before new missiles/or better hypersonic weapons pop up. GZUR Phase II (is to be ~14Ma)
The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.
Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!
Occam's razor: you can solve problem in many ways the question to me is which one is best in terms invested resources vs. return. Before you develop Su 57, Kinzhal +integrate with new aircraft carriers => 10-15 years. Kinzhal might be not first choice because of technology. Zircon is now (OK in 2 years).
To me they always plan a marathon not sprint.
Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.
in every way you can assume they have it
No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??
do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian CVNs are happily navigating around the world now
? I thought we were talking about 2030s.
you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.
Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.
Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra
cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.
Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.
Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
Ok we are dead in any case then.
precisely this is what I am talking about - in conventional war you cannot win with larger opponent, with better demographics and economy. III Reich had not attacked USSR they had good chances to win. Enough to conquer UK and US couldnt come close t europe without large losses. Landing would be virtually impossible. here so easily. How they move fleet here close to German shores?
But that's why UK/US was so lenient with Hitler developments and crediting his development in 30. Hitler was bred to bone with anti Russian hate to remove 2 economical competitors with one stone. Germans and USSR.
What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more,.
The situation in Syria wouldn't be different if you had 40 Russian fighters there too. They'd ask 2 more CVNs and what?
Russia doesn't play sea control strategy but sea denial. Both are working second one is much much cost effective.
BTW NATO? doves of piss to me