Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Chief UAC designer saying Su-57 can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??

He said? Oh in that case it's settled.

Lockheed Martin said 2 years ago that they will demonstrate portable fusion reactor in couple of months. Same thing, eh?

And from which ship would these Su-57 operate from? By the time they manage to build some barge big enough to handle it Su-57 will be ripe for decommission.

It would be wise to keep in mind that these statements are coming from same crop of people who expect us to believe that those dastardly Americans are sneaking into their hangars at night and are drilling holes in Soyuz capsules...

Isos wrote:And ? Any fighter can have a naval version.

No, that is actually not true. Not every fighter can be adapted to naval requirements, because of aerodynamics, structure and landing gear among others. Check history of naval fighters if you doubt it.

The thing is that right now they can't produce them since they don't have a carrier capable of operating it. And when you see the small number of jets on K, you don't start production of su-57k to replace ten or so su-33 and 4 mig-29k.

Even the production of land based version seems problematic, let alone a naval version. They would need another billions for its conversion, tens of billion for the new carrier R&D and construction + 5 or 6 billion for enough su-57k t fit in. Something russia can't do right now.  And if those project of LHD+VSTOL are real then the carrier won't be produce any time soon.

If the VSTOL jet is good enough then making it a "normal" jet could be an easy solution for future 5th gen carrier fighter. The free space of the middle engine would allow more fuel and bigger weapons bays.

Not really agreeing on the figures and statements above, but, what is your point exactly? I am just saying the technical feasibility of a Su-57K had been confirmed by the possibly most authoritative source possible so I consider this dispute closed. This was an ongoing discussion time ago, in terms of assessing what are the Russian options for future naval fighters. What they do in the end and when is a matter of the decisions of MoD, but I would think the naval strategy document should be taken as the guideline and there the decision to build carriers and a blue water navy is clearly stated.

Next steps are probably:
> Deciding whether they finally build carriers, with what characteristics and in what schedule.
> Accordingly, what kind of fighter will operate from them. Su-57? STOVL? MiG-29? New Flanker version?? UCAV??
> If Su-57K was to be chosen, they would need to harmonize the designs of both plane and carrier. And then develop the technical solution, probably considering 2nd stage engines. Wing folding, arrestor, reinforcements, instrumentation etc.

By the time they are ready with the prototypes, we would probably have year 2025. K would be back online and may (or may not) be compatible with the new 57K. I see no reason why it would not be compatible with K but of course this would need to be seen. But in any case they have the 29Ks (two squadrons) with still ca. 20 years life in front of them, so there is no real hurry.

PapaDragon wrote:He said? Oh in that case it's settled.

Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.

LMFS wrote:.............
Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.

It was technically feasible to nuke the Moon

They haven't done it for a reason, same applies here

LMFS wrote:Not every fighter can be adapted to naval requirements, because of aerodynamics, structure and landing gear among others. Check history of naval fighters if you doubt it.

Actually there is nothing stopping you from making navalised variant of any fighter there is. Actually majority of USAF fighters can land on carriers if really required, or for emergency landings on make-happen-asap airstrips, even tho they are not primary built as navalised fighters.

Main difference is the reinforced landing gear to deal with increased landing stress, other than that those are basically same machines.

Can Su-57 be turned into K variant? Sure. Will they? Eeww...maybe, if they ever put tarmac on some tanker long enough to land it on

Militarov wrote:Actually there is nothing stopping you from making navalised variant of any fighter there is. Actually majority of USAF fighters can land on carriers if really required, or for emergency landings on make-happen-asap airstrips, even tho they are not primary built as navalised fighters.

Main difference is the reinforced landing gear to deal with increased landing stress, other than that those are basically same machines.

Yes, you could say every plane can land on a carrier the same I can drink poison... at least one time
From all the sources I have seen USAF fighters cannot land on a carrier, from type of hook to minimum speed to maximum sink rate, structural strength are simply not valid, and the fact that USAF and Navy use different aircraft only supports that. So would be interested in seeing some links providing info on what you refer.

Regarding naval versions: of course without economic or performance constraints you can modify so much a plane that it can operate from a carrier, but at what cost? F-15N was proposed and discarded due to exaggerated weight increase for instance. F-22 in its current aero design would not be capable of carrier approaches, not to talk about the landing gear and hence the general design of the plane and internal structure. Or try to fit a CATOBAR compatible front landing gear on a F-16. So in practical terms there are aircraft designs that allow for navalization and others that don't allow it with reasonable amount of effort, costs and performance of the resulting aircraft.

Isos wrote:The point is that russia can do it but won't because they don't have the money and the carrier. Kuznetsov is too small to spend more on the su-57 program, which will be produced in smaller numbers than expected, to have a couple of naval su-57.

Well, let them decide that for themselves. They created the Su-33 and MiG-29K also for small numbers in the end. More on that below.
Regarding the K, why is it too small? Two squadrons Su-57 as would be possibly carried on the K are too few but three or four would be ok? What is the number you consider ok?

Even the VTOL program if it has started could be stpped if the Lavina or whatever is its name class isn't build. Those programs have to be done togather and you need to be sure there will have enough money to finish it.

Right, with the difference that Su-57 already exists and STOVL doesn't. Difference in the efforts needed for both developments are essentially orders of magnitude apart. If you have some numbers of Su-57 in the VVS and then a very closely related K version in the carriers, your economies of scale are huge compared to a plane developed only for the navy.

Su-57 program proved that new technologies coast huge ammount so they can't just start them and then stop them because they can't build lot of them.

These are extremely long term programs. Su-57 will be serving for the next 40 years, that is why they are not in a hurry to deploy them until they are effective and reliable.

I wasn't following in details the discussion. Future naval fighters means they started a program for carrier. They have not. Only speculation.

Really people, what do you think a strategic document like the naval doctrine is for? This is not toilet paper. May not be implemented 100%, may (will) have delays, due to the extreme long term planning involved. But the firm intentions to create carriers are stated there and also outside of that document many times. Why do you keep doubting it all the time? Most probably they will keep K for a good while and build two or three new carriers, more or less along the lines of other big countries like India or China.

Russia should also build the small shtorm to gain in experience and put only cheap mig 29k on it

I think carriers are too expensive to build cheap experiments and give them a go (not saying light carrier and MiG-29K cannot cope with the task). Either you need them and in that case you build what you need or you put the money to other use.

If I would be in Russian MOD, well

I would go straight for only two options:
1) project 23000 Shtorm Carrier or modified or similar one
2) a deal with Chinese to buy 002A blueprints or a ready to sail ship.

Why?

1) Because carriers are the most expensive and long lifespan ships of navy's fleet, Russia don't lack skills in nuclear propulsion, and with such a ship I would choose a Kirov-like hybrid propulsion system and a Kuznetsov-like hard missile attack/defence tubes. With such a solution they'll have no needs to develop bigger reactors, just plant 4/6 of the ones of Boreis and possibility of autonomous propulsion even in worst case of reactors fails and no need to form a numerous battle group such as US Navy.
2) It's an almost ready package and needs not deep modifications to the original project to accomodate russian jets. It carry in dote EMALS system and they in case they could buy one ready to sail from chineses it solves the main russian problem: building issues, delays, deficiency in manufacturing technology, burocracy and every could slow down construcion and raise costs.

About both of these solutions: their 300+m lenght seems sufficient to accomodate Su-57's or a derivate version landing. Not least, such a ship is eventullay, a BLUE WATER power projection ship. When we start talking about this arguments, long distance power projection, it becomes very less important 1-2-3-4 billions more or less because it gives way more contribution to national interests in any form they present, avoiding wars, protect allies and routes etc I don't want to slide in political discussions but Russia needs at VERY least one (and at least two) blue water battle group.


Then about other proposals..
I find has not a big sense to build a V pseudo-double-keel hull carrier, it's a weird creature and poses more problems then solutions of internal logistics, machineries, system and supply arrangement, not to mention headaches when will need to be drydocked.
And a standard medium/light carrier such as Italian ones I think the worst choice. Their utility is very poor even in regional/mediterranean theatres. They comes with conventional propulsion, scarce autonomy, low speed, no way to operate heavily armed aircrafts, no power projection at all, just tin-toys even compared to french R91 Charles De Gaulle.
Any good only for Bellona fraks.

LMFS wrote:Chief UAC designer saying Su-57

Yo bro, - Su-57 chief designer and general manger is the same ?!  Youri Slyusar in OAK that I know about is a lawyer by trade, who become a gen manager of OAK or it was another Yuri SLyusar talking?      

https://ria.ru/spravka/20150113/1042414192.html
http://whoiswho.dp.ru/cart/person/1932403/

LMFS wrote: can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??
You have nerve man, could make a good spokesman for State Department or US mission at the UN    

Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.




You know this remains me Russian joke I've head lately:

The MiG-33 has a larger wing area with bigger flaps and control surfaces and rather more powerful engines than the land based MiG-29, which had 8.3 ton thrust engines compared with the 9 ton thrust engines of the MiG-33.

Having wheel chocks that hold the aircraft while the engines are run up to full speed shortens take off run, as does having a ski jump and thrust vectored engines...

The biggest advantage is that it is unlikely to carry anything like its maximum weight most of the time because AAMs are much lighter than most air to ground munitions.

LMFS wrote:I am just saying the technical feasibility of a Su-57K had been confirmed by the possibly most authoritative source possible so I consider this dispute closed. This was an ongoing discussion time ago, in terms of assessing what are the Russian options for future naval fighters. What they do in the end and when is a matter of the decisions of MoD, but I would think the naval strategy document should be taken as the guideline and there the decision to build carriers and a blue water navy is clearly stated.

Next steps are probably:
> Deciding whether they finally build carriers, with what characteristics and in what schedule.
> Accordingly, what kind of fighter will operate from them. Su-57? STOVL? MiG-29? New Flanker version?? UCAV??
> If Su-57K was to be chosen, they would need to harmonize the designs of both plane and carrier. And then develop the technical solution, probably considering 2nd stage engines. Wing folding, arrestor, reinforcements, instrumentation etc.

By the time they are ready with the prototypes, we would probably have year 2025. K would be back online and may (or may not) be compatible with the new 57K. I see no reason why it would not be compatible with K but of course this would need to be seen. But in any case they have the 29Ks (two squadrons) with still ca. 20 years life in front of them, so there is no real hurry.

PapaDragon wrote:He said? Oh in that case it's settled.

Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.

This makes sense. I totally agree in all the bolded in green part. And like you say, is very likely to see the Su-57 operated from the Project 11435 A Kutznetsov aircraft carrier (for sure it will be considered in the modernization of the ship, if it was some problem previously).

I have not doubt that the changes required for a naval variant of the Su-57 are minimal, and not very high cost. My alone doubt at this point is if the main variant of the Su-57 is compatible with the use from aircraft carriers. It would be an important advantage in my view.

Gibraltar wrote:If I would be in Russian MOD, well

I would go straight for only two options:
1) project 23000 Shtorm Carrier or modified or similar one
2) a deal with Chinese to buy 002A blueprints or a ready to sail ship.

Why?

1) Because carriers are the most expensive and long lifespan ships of navy's fleet, Russia don't lack skills in nuclear propulsion, and with such a ship I would choose a Kirov-like hybrid propulsion system and a Kuznetsov-like hard missile attack/defence tubes. With such a solution they'll have no needs to develop bigger reactors, just plant 4/6 of the ones of Boreis and possibility of autonomous propulsion even in worst case of reactors fails and no need to form a numerous battle group such as US Navy.
2) It's an almost ready package and needs not deep modifications to the original project to accomodate russian jets. It carry in dote EMALS system and they in case they could buy one ready to sail from chineses it solves the main russian problem: building issues, delays, deficiency in manufacturing technology, burocracy and every could slow down construcion and raise costs.

About both of these solutions: their 300+m lenght seems sufficient to accomodate Su-57's or a derivate version landing. Not least, such a ship is eventullay, a BLUE WATER power projection ship. When we start talking about this arguments, long distance power projection, it becomes very less important 1-2-3-4 billions more or less because it gives way more contribution to national interests in any form they present, avoiding wars, protect allies and routes etc I don't want to slide in political discussions but Russia needs at VERY least one (and at least two) blue water battle group.


Then about other proposals..
I find has not a big sense to build a V pseudo-double-keel hull carrier, it's a weird creature and poses more problems then solutions of internal logistics, machineries, system and supply arrangement, not to mention headaches when will need to be drydocked.
And a standard medium/light carrier such as Italian ones I think the worst choice. Their utility is very poor even in regional/mediterranean theatres. They comes with conventional propulsion, scarce autonomy, low speed, no way to operate heavily armed aircrafts, no power projection at all, just tin-toys even compared to french R91 Charles De Gaulle.
Any good only for Bellona fraks.

The option 1 is the strongest under every technical analysis, assuming that Russia wants own production in order to avoid problems.

No need to repeat arguments, simply bolded in green the parts where I totally agree.

China is a fair and reliable ally for Russia today and very likely will continue being in the future. I do not think Russia would have a problem with the second option, but surely prefers the first.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Yo bro, - Su-57 chief designer and general manger is the same ?!  Youri Slyusar in OAK that I know about is a lawyer by trade, who become a gen manager of OAK or it was another Yuri SLyusar talking?      

https://ria.ru/spravka/20150113/1042414192.html
http://whoiswho.dp.ru/cart/person/1932403/

I put this info on the STOVL thread. It was stated by UAC chief designer Sergey Korotkov.
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7135p375-russian-stovl-vtol-fighter-development#239178

Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.

You said the Su-57 had probably gone through the navalization conceptual studies and that modification was deemed too complex, see below:

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings?

No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized...

looks like Su-57 undergone similar exercise and perhaps that's why this decision.

@Gibraltar:
Krylov designs are just proposals, the bureau that normally takes care of carrier designs in Russia is Nevskoye. They say they are working on carrier designs and technologies, and hints have been a carrier around 70kT. The director Sergey Vlasov said he didn't agree on putting every system in the carrier instead of making it simply a carrier, implying that all the defensive systems just make the vessel more complex and expensive. Nevertheless I think MoD will want some kind of "cruiser" capabilities both because of their doctrine and lack of escorting vessels and also due to Montreux convention.

Having said that, the light design from Krylov has bigger deck and same air wing of K with 30% less displacement due to new hull shape. That is a great advantage IMO that should be explored, have no way of knowing what are the associated problems you mention. Don't think it is a radical multihull design just a moerate modification of the keels to get a broader stern.

eehnie wrote:
China is a fair and reliable ally for Russia today and very likely will continue being in the future. I do not think Russia would have a problem with the second option, but surely prefers the first.

I think Chinese are in debt with Russia in the carrier-affair. Don't forget they got access to carrier platform by completing the Varyag, bought for nothing from Ukranians, tugged for 5 seas, it gave chinese almost immediate and low low low cost access to carrier platform technology even not the newest. I think that has been an error in Russia own convenience to let the Varyag be sold and not rebuy and complete by themselfs, but, being confident about chinese reliability as strategic partner maybe has been a right choice. History will speak.
In any case without russian will, Varyag scratches would been rusting forever in Ukraine and never become Liaoning, so it wouldn't be unfair if chineses give back something to Russia.

LMFS wrote:
@Gibraltar:
Krylov designs are just proposals, the bureau that normally takes care of carrier designs in Russia is Nevskoye. They say they are working on carrier designs and technologies, and hints have been a carrier around 70kT. The director Sergey Vlasov said he didn't agree on putting every system in the carrier instead of making it simply a carrier, implying that all the defensive systems just make the vessel more complex and expensive. Nevertheless I think MoD will want some kind of "cruiser" capabilities both because of their doctrine and lack of escorting vessels and also due to Montreux convention.

Having said that, the light design from Krylov has bigger deck and same air wing of K with 30% less displacement due to new hull shape. That is a great advantage IMO that should be explored, have no way of knowing what are the associated problems you mention. Don't think it is a radical multihull design just a moerate modification of the keels to get a broader stern.

I totally agree with MoD underlined, it's Russian doctrine and has perfect sense.
Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.

Last add, carriers as ssbn are a fleet part depending 90% on highest level political decisions, very few should be left to militaries wishes because they would choose the easiest and lightest configuration to operate forgetting about capability strategic performances. We can see it by how has been discouraged Kirov platforms rehaul that was in the end started by Putin's circle spin. I hope they won't trade the best capabilities obtainable with carriers for a pretended flexibility.

LMFS wrote:F-15N was proposed and discarded due to exaggerated weight increase for instance.

It would be comparable to Su-33 in that matter, which USN didnt like plus the weapons array that was available to F-15A wasnt adequate either. To my knowledge there was very little structural work on F-15N compared to the original design, however landing gear modifications had to be severe, that is beyond question, its one thing to land 10 times on a carrier another to land 2000 times. Which again brings us to the conclusion that you can if you want turn anything into navalised fighter if you really want.

I also said that you CAN land on a carrier with it, i never said its smart idea or something that could be done repeatedly.

Dassault Rafale, EF-2000, F-15, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25, Venom, Tejas and... dozens of other fighters got their navalised variant, were tested or are proposed even tho they were concieved as land based fighters. Even V-1600 was a thing at one point...

Gibraltar wrote:Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear  (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.

Well, I am no naval engineer but facts are following:
> K has 4 steam turbines and 4 shafts, Shtorm KM apparently two shafts.
> 29 knots max speed K, 28 for Shtorm-KM. 25 knots for instance for Queen Elizabeth
> 150 MW propulsion power for K, 81 MW Shtorm-KM
> Draft 10 m K, 8,5 Shtorm-KM
> Essentially same dimensions on water line than K, which is clearly a blue water design (carrier is per definition the blue water vessel)
> Trimaran (Shtorm-KM resembles that layout with one keel at the bow and two at the stern) are consider among the best sea-keeping ships

Best picture of the stern I have seen:

Some interesting comments from 2017:
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201707131538-ziq3.htm

- Expected three times cheaper than Shtorm (350 billion for the complete Shtorm system, 200-280 billion for the ship). That would mean 70-100 billion for the ship of the Shtorm-KM design (?)
- Budget for design of new aircraft carrier included in GPV 2025 (acc. to Victor Bursuk)

Militarov wrote:It would be comparable to Su-33 in that matter, which USN didnt like plus the weapons array that was available to F-15A wasnt adequate either. To my knowledge there was very little structural work on F-15N compared to the original design, however landing gear modifications had to be severe, that is beyond question, its one thing to land 10 times on a carrier another to land 2000 times. Which again brings us to the conclusion that you can if you want turn anything into navalised fighter if you really want.

I also said that you CAN land on a carrier with it, i never said its smart idea or something that could be done repeatedly.

Dassault Rafale, EF-2000, F-15, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25, Venom, Tejas and... dozens of other fighters got their navalised variant, were tested or are proposed even tho they were concieved as land based fighters. Even V-1600 was a thing at one point...

Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

In any case my point is about the inherent aptness for carrier operations rather than disputing the wildcard argument "everything is possible if you really want", which is easy to defend but has little significance to me. Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues. And therefore some planes are modified for navy operations and others are not. It is not the same using a thicker, stronger landing strut than having to change the landing gear layout, to give an example. From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.

LMFS wrote:

Gibraltar wrote:Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear  (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.

Well, I am no naval engineer but facts are following:
> K has 4 steam turbines and 4 shafts, Shtorm KM apparently two shafts.
> 29 knots max speed K, 28 for Shtorm-KM. 25 knots for instance for Queen Elizabeth
> 150 MW propulsion power for K, 81 MW Shtorm-KM
> Draft 10 m K, 8,5 Shtorm-KM
> Essentially same dimensions on water line than K, which is clearly a blue water design (carrier is per definition the blue water vessel)
> Trimaran (Shtorm-KM resembles that layout with one keel at the bow and two at the stern) are consider among the best sea-keeping ships

Best picture of the stern I have seen:

Some interesting comments from 2017:
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201707131538-ziq3.htm

- Expected three times cheaper than Shtorm (350 billion for the complete Shtorm system, 200-280 billion for the ship). That would mean 70-100 billion for the ship of the Shtorm-KM design (?)
- Budget for design of new aircraft carrier included in GPV 2025 (acc. to Victor Bursuk)

Saved costs compared to full Shtorm design is all about propulsion, going conventional instead of nuclear. It's a double loss, first because of known advantages of nuclear powering that kind of ships, second because at this moment russians have way more problems and headaches with gas turbines (Gorshkovs..) since weaning from ukrainian suppliers and are way far from mastering that technology when for the nuclear option Krylov full Shtorm design assumed same (doubled) power plant of last Arktika icebreakerss series.
Hull shape complexity won't be cheaper to build up than a standard single keel design even 25m longer. Less power needed is about lower displacement which means less space inside.
And not to forget, conventional power plant means maybe not sufficient power to supply EMALS, so turning back to 60's tech steam catapults or just resuming pure sky-jump scheme.

Interesting analysis of the Shtorm-KM, from August this year (innovative hull design unknown then I think)

http://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.com/2018/08/vmf-porte-aeronefs-leger-stobar.html

@Gibraltar: I would go for nuclear propulsion too, but with the Shtorm-KM hull layout (do not agree less displacement = less internal space, specifically due to the new hull design it is actually the opposite in this case) only maybe little bigger for bigger air wing than 2 sqd. (though if Su-57Ks were the fighters on board, even the 4 sqd. fighter air wing of a US CVN would probably struggle, considering their currently deployed fighters)

Even when hull is not the most expensive cost driver, a layout that allows to save significant displacement for the same dimensions should be taken IMO. Do not have a way of knowing for sure but the power reduction is also VERY significant for essentially same max speed, so I find it possible that we have also an improved hydrodynamic efficiency: K has 45% more displacement but uses 85% more power. Will be keeping an eye on this because is massive as far as I can see. My explanation is that the two rear keels allow for broader hull but with somehow reduced draft and above all reduced cross sectional area compared to single hull.

Have seen contradictory info on whether it has catapults or not, but the model does not have to show any. They should be present I think at the end of the angled deck, while the bow should keep the springboard because from what I have seen modern fighters do not need catapults even at full load.

LMFS wrote:Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

It happened more then once, not so much for stunts, but to try and resolve the need for resupply bases, which was an issue at the time, i guess.

Gibraltar wrote:Last add, carriers as ssbn are a fleet part depending 90% on highest level political decisions, very few should be left to militaries wishes because they would choose the easiest and lightest configuration to operate forgetting about capability strategic performances. We can see it by how has been discouraged Kirov platforms rehaul that was in the end started by Putin's circle spin. I hope they won't trade the best capabilities obtainable with carriers for a pretended flexibility.

It is other way around, sir. Military like to overspend budget on not really important toys. You know the more you spent the more important your position is.   It would b emilitary wanting large expensive and geopolitically toys with little use.

AlfaT8 wrote:It happened more then once, not so much for stunts, but to try and resolve the need for resupply bases, which was an issue at the time, i guess.

resupply bases from CVN? did you perhaps mean Carrier Onboard Delivery?

LMFS wrote:Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues.

Yo bro, the biggest issue it lack of aircraft carriers. US can navalize any fighter that they want to. BTW where there any fighters could not be navalized due to their features?

From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.

Nobody confirmed that this is gonna be easy. Text you quoted says that this can be done. . What is obvious as for any fighter.
As you pointed out earlier statement that this is possible  is  of little importance for you.

BTW Soviets in discussion about navalizine MiG-23 or MiG-29 didnt talk about "roadblocks" but only about qualities of fighter at first AFAIR.[/quote]

LMFS wrote:

Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.

You said the Su-57 had probably gone through the navalization conceptual studies and that modification was deemed too complex, see below:

so between possible and being effective you dont see any difference?        for some strange reason VSTOL was c chosen at level of decision makers. Do you think they didnt check possibilities with Su-57 before making such an important decision?