Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Russia will sign contract for procurement of no less than 110 Mig-35 for AF, according to news I have read on this Forum. Or I`m wrong?

Appendix I - The Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Activities for the Period until 2030

General Provisions

1. These Fundamentals determine the goals, objectives, priorities and mechanisms of implementation of the state policy of Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period until 2030, as well as the role and place of the Navy, forces and facilities of the federal security service bodies in the military component of the naval capacity of the Russian Federation.

4. These Fundamentals are a document of strategic planning of the Russian Federation.

5. These Fundamentals concretize certain provisions of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, the Naval Doctrine of the Russian Federation, and other documents of strategic planning of the Russian Federation in the military sphere, as well as the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation.

6. Naval activities are the activities of the state with the goal of forming and maintaining by military means of favorable conditions in the World Ocean for sustainable development of the Russian Federation and implementation of top priorities of its national security.

7. Naval activities are a component (type) of the military activities of the state, which are exercised in the World Ocean with the goal of preventing aggression against the Russian Federation and of implementing its national interests, and belong to the category of the highest state priorities.

8. The Russian Federation continues to retain the status of a great sea power; its naval capacity ensures the implementation and protection of its national interests in any area of the World Ocean, is an important factor of international stability and strategic deterrence, and allows it to pursue independent national maritime policy as an equal participant of the international maritime activities.

12. The Navy as part of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation serves to ensure the protection of national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military means, to maintain military and political stability on the global and regional levels, to repulse acts of aggression against the Russian Federation from the direction of the ocean and the seas.

13. The Navy creates and maintains conditions necessary to ensure the safety and security of the maritime activities of the Russian Federation; ensures its naval presence, display of the flag of the Russian Federation and the military strength of the state in the World Ocean; participates in the fight against piracy, in military, peacekeeping and humanitarian activities pursued by the world community and meeting the interests of the Russian Federation; makes calls of naval ships at ports of foreign states; protects the state border of the Russian Federation under water, including anti-submarine and anti-underwater-sabotage defense in the interests of security of the Russian Federation.



Russia and the World Ocean. Military Dangers and Threats to the National Security of the Russian Federation

18. The long-term significance of the World Ocean for the entire world and for the Russian Federation will grow steadily due to the depletion of natural resources on land, impact of human economic and other activities on the environment, climate change, human migration, and other processes.

20. Recently, rivalry between countries for the access to the natural resources of the World Ocean has become stronger; the aspirations of a number of states to gain control over the strategically important maritime transportation routes have intensified. In the context of increased intensity of World Ocean exploitation for economic and military goals, the political significance of the above-mentioned factors acquires a global character.

21. Leading world powers, possessing significant naval capacity and a developed basing system, continue to step up their naval presence in the major areas of the World Ocean, including water zones directly adjacent to the territory of the Russian Federation.

23. For the period until 2030, unstable military and political situation is predicted in the world, characterized by increased global competition, rivalry of world power centers, instability of political and economic processes taking place against the backdrop of deterioration of international relations and activation of transnational terrorist groups.

24. Existing dangers continue to exist and new dangers emerge to the national security of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean; the chief of them are:

a) ambition of a number of countries, primarily the United States of America (USA) and its allies, to dominate the World Ocean, including the Arctic, and to achieve overwhelming superiority of their naval forces;

b) territorial claims of foreign states against the Russian Federation with respect to coastal areas and water zones adjacent to them;

c) increased number of countries that possess combat-capable and powerful naval forces;

d) proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies;

e) ambition of a number of countries to limit the access of the Russian Federation to the resources of the World Ocean and its access to vital maritime transportation routes;

f) economic, political, legal and military pressure on the Russian Federation with the aim to decrease the efficiency of its maritime activities in the World Ocean, weaken its control over the Northern Sea Route – the historically established national transportation route of the Russian Federation;

g) growth of international terrorism, piracy, poaching, illegal maritime shipment of arms, narcotics, psychotropic substances, chemical substances, and radioactive materials;

h) flash points of armed conflicts and their escalation in the territories strategically significant for the Russian Federation and its allies, as well as in the territories of the countries that have outlet to the World Ocean.

27. The necessity for the naval presence of the Russian Federation in strategically important and other regions of the World Ocean is also determined on the basis of the following dangers:

a) increased ambition of a number of states to possess sources of hydrocarbon resources in the Middle East, the Arctic, and the Caspian Sea basin;

b) negative impact on the international atmosphere of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conflicts in the Middle and Near East, in several South Asian and African countries;

c) possible exacerbation of existing and emergence of new inter-state conflicts in any region of the World Ocean;

d) growth of pirate activity in the Gulf of Guinea, as well as in the Indian and Pacific Oceans;

e) the possibility of foreign states opposing the economic activity of the Russian Federation and its scientific research in the World Ocean.



Goals, Objectives, and Priorities of State Policy in the Field of Naval Activities

28. Major goals of state policy in the field of naval activities are:

a) maintaining the naval capacity on a level ensuring guaranteed deterrence of aggression against the Russian Federation from the seas and the oceans, and capability of causing unacceptable damage to any potential enemy;

b) maintaining strategic stability and international rule of law in the World Ocean, in particular, by the effective use of the Navy as one of the major tools of foreign policy of the Russian Federation;…

29. Major objectives of state policy in the field of naval activities are:

a) In the sphere of defense and national security:

ensuring constant readiness of the Navy for the deterrence and prevention of military conflicts, for armed defense of the Russian Federation and its allies in accordance with the norms of international law;

development of a system of national security of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean by designing and implementing a complex of interrelated political, diplomatic, legal, military, economic, informational and other measures to prevent and decrease the level of aggression threat against the Russian Federation in the World Ocean;…

c) In the sphere of economy: …

creating in the remote areas of the Arctic and the Far East districts of the Russian Federation of dual-purpose infrastructure facilities with the aim of providing basing for civil ships, Navy ships and vessels, and federal security service bodies;

d) In the sphere of foreign policy:

ensuring sufficient naval presence of the Russian Federation in the strategically important areas of the World Ocean, display of the flag of the Russian Federation and its military force;

expansion of geographical reach of visits and business calls of Navy ships and vessels at foreign ports;…

g) In the sphere of strategic stability:

involving foreign states in joint actions maintaining security and strategic stability in the World Ocean;

developing logistics centers of the Navy outside the territory of the Russian Federation;

forming groups of special ships and vessels to provide comprehensive support of the activities of the Navy forces (troops) in the World Ocean;

adhering to international treaties of the Russian Federation in the field of strategic arms reduction and limitation, participation of the Russian Federation in development and conclusion of new agreements in keeping with its national interests;

contributing to the strengthening of regional stability, development and implementation of confidence-building measures in the field of naval activities;

participation of the Navy forces (troops) in international peace- and security-keeping (restoration) operations, taking measures to prevent (remove) threats to peace, suppressing acts of aggression (breach of peace) on the basis of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council or other bodies authorized to make such decisions in accordance with the norms of international law;…

30. Priorities of state policy in the field of naval activities are:

a) maintaining operational and combat capabilities of the Navy at a level that ensures it one of the leading positions in the world;

b) developing and maintaining the ability of the Navy to strike potential enemy targets on land with both conventional and nuclear weapons;

c) balanced development of the Navy with the aim of not allowing significant superiority of the US Navy or that of other leading sea powers over the Navy;

d) ensuring the possibility of long-term presence of the Navy forces (troops) in strategically important areas of the World Ocean;…



The Navy as an Effective Instrument of Strategic Deterrence

31. In the 21st century, the role of armed forces in the fight between countries for leadership in the seas and oceans grows significantly. Navies of world powers are capable of changing the course of a military confrontation and the outcome of a war as a whole by their naval actions. A proof of this fact is the concept of “global strike” developed in the USA, which presents a challenge to world security and directly threatens military security of the Russian Federation. An important role in the implementation of this concept is assigned to the naval forces.

32. The Navy is one of the most effective instruments of strategic (nuclear and non-nuclear) deterrence, including the prevention of the “global strike”. This is due to the presence in the Navy of the naval strategic nuclear forces and general-purpose naval forces, to the possibility of it implementing its combat capabilities practically in every region of the World Ocean, to its capacity for prompt deployment of Navy forces (troops) in conflict areas and long-term presence in these areas without violating sovereignty of other countries, as well as to high readiness to action, including launching strikes against critically important enemy targets.

33. Following development of high-precision weapons, the Navy is now facing a qualitatively new mission – destroying the enemy’s military-economic potential by attacking its vital targets from the sea.

34. Availability of sufficient quantity of high-precision weapons and possibility of their various uses will make possible the deterrence of large-scale military action against the Russian Federation.

35. Core elements of the strategic deterrence system are nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence.

37. In the context of escalation of a military conflict, display of readiness and determination to apply force with the use of non-strategic nuclear weapon is a credible deterrent.

38. Major objectives of the naval activities for prevention of military conflicts and strategic deterrence are:

a) continuous evaluation and prediction of military and political environment in the World Ocean on global and regional levels;

b) maintaining strategic stability in the World Ocean;

c) maintaining the readiness of Navy forces (troops) for action in strategically important areas of the World Ocean;

d) ensuring the ability of the Navy ships to use weapons, including long-range high-precision weapons, against any potential enemy;

e) inter-theater maneuvering and regular under-ice navigation by the Navy atomic submarines;

f) enhancing operational and combat capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet by developing a joint force grouping in the Crimean peninsula;

g) ensuring constant naval presence of the Russian Federation in the Mediterranean Sea and other strategically important areas of the World Ocean, including areas of major maritime transportation routes;…



Strategic Requirements for the Navy, Objectives and Priorities in the Field of its Construction and Development

39. The Russian Federation will not allow significant superiority of the navies of other states over the Navy and will ensure the Navy secures its place as the second in the world in combat capabilities.

40. The Navy must fulfill the following major strategic requirements:

a) in time of peace and in the period of a direct threat of aggression: …

ability to deploy forces promptly and covertly in remote areas of the World Ocean;…

sustainable, covert and continuous management of forces (troops) in real time when they are located in any area of the World Ocean;

b) in time of war:

ability to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy in order to force him to cease military operations on conditions of guaranteed assurance of national interests of the Russian Federation;

capability for successful confrontation with an enemy who has high-technology naval capacity (including having high-precision weapons in its arsenal), with its naval forces groupings in near and remote maritime zones and ocean areas;…

capability of long-term autonomous activity, including independent logistics and weapons replenishment in remote areas of the World Ocean from new projects logistics support ships;…

41. Major objectives in the sphere of Navy construction and development are:

b) maintaining the combat capability of the naval strategic nuclear forces at a high level;…

42. Mid-term and long-term priorities in the field of Navy construction and development are:

a) updating and maintaining at a high level of the naval strategic nuclear forces which are component of strategic missile submarine groups;

c) formation of combat strength of task forces in various strategic areas, based on the most unfavorable predictions of outbreak of hostilities against the Russian Federation;…

43. The core weapons of Navy surface and submarine forces as well as coastal defense troops for the period of up to 2025 will be high-precision long-range cruise missiles.

44. After 2025, hypersonic missiles and robotic devices of various applications, including unmanned underwater vehicles, will enter service in Navy surface and submarine forces as well as coastal defense troops.

45. There are plans to build an aircraft carrier, new surface warships and submarines (combat platforms), new generation deep-water naval systems, and to deploy naval robotic systems for performing a large array of combat and supporting missions.



Conclusion

52. The Russian Federation, being a great sea and land power, must take into account all aspects of geopolitical processes happening in the World Ocean, in coastal territories, and in adjacent water zones.

53. Trends of development of modern global geopolitical environment furnish convincing proof that only the presence of a strong Navy will ensure leading position for the Russian Federation in the multi-polar world of the 21st century, and will allow it to effectively implement and protect its national interests.

kumbor wrote:Russia will sign contract for procurement of no less than 110 Mig-35 for AF, according to news I have read on this Forum. Or I`m wrong?

eehnie wrote:The problems of India are just the problems of every country with small aircraft carriers.

Narrow dimmenssions are a problem for the use of aircrafts. It means stronger limits for the aircrafts, that lead to smaller aircrafts with less firepower.

Very likely the MiG-29K variant was not designed for aircraft carriers of 44000 tons. They are likely forcing the aircraft.

LMFS wrote:

kumbor wrote:Russia will sign contract for procurement of no less than 110 Mig-35 for AF, according to news I have read on this Forum. Or I`m wrong?

Only firm RuAF order I know is the one for six units signed this summer...

LMFS wrote:This should be the 2017 revision of Russian naval doctrine. The implications are the need of a blue water navy, to be a tool of foreign policy and intent not to allow significant superiority of USN. Corrections are welcome:

LMFS wrote:
They are happy with Su-35 and are building the PAK-FA regardless... due to development time you always work in the successors of your c
urrent fleet. Do not see anything strange or fundamentally wrong here. Su-33 have still life on them and it makes sense to install the SVP24 on them. Once the MiGs are done, they will be substituted, they don't need (by now) to buy additional ones considering the K is in retrofit and they already have two sqd. worth of them plus the Sukhois. Maybe your intuition is correct and RuN does not like the MiGs but until now I didn't see any official complain or comment in this direction.

In any case, a company like MiG that has been losing contracts and projects to Sukhoi over so many years has probably lost also engineers and many other valuable resources, this I can easily accept. MoD and government are doing everything possible to bring back credibility and orders to the company because it is a national asset. That means, what needs to be improved will be improved, like the service structure or production processes. They will not throw a worldwide-known brand like MiG into the trash bin only because of some difficulties.

Even MiG themselves erased  MiG-29k name... of course who is guilty? Indians

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:The problems of India are just the problems of every country with small aircraft carriers.

Narrow dimmenssions are a problem for the use of aircrafts. It means stronger limits for the aircrafts, that lead to smaller aircrafts with less firepower.

Very likely the MiG-29K variant was not designed for aircraft carriers of 44000 tons. They are likely forcing the aircraft.

This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I hope more from RuAF will come. This would be a great move to support Indian AF tender.

Well, first of all there is nothing anything about building large or small CVN. Only not to be bullied i.e. unacceptable damage also by non nuclear means if Im correct. NO info about displacement.

So we can be sure that ship groupings with powerful punch will be created. Will s be classical approach as USN CSGs? IMHO highly unlikely.

Drones? long range hypersonic missiles? yep.

Gzur alone lets you cotrol 7mln km2 with combat radius of aviation close to 0.

ekhm well and any contract signed last 6 years? any fighters built last 3-4 years? any tender in calendar booked? MiG-35 was offered to Ru
Navy recently or MiG-29k?

eehnie wrote:Today, excluding the last Harriers, only the Rafale and the F-35 are used in aircraft carriers of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. The Rafale is optimized likely for the use in their own aircraft carrier, that is of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. Thanks to it, can be better addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers, but this means not that is better than the MiG-29 K.

Surely it would be possible to do a variant of the MiG-29/35 well addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers. Very likely only introducing some small modifications over the MiG-29K basis, at the cost of reducing a little the payload, and as consequence, the firepower.

India should not complain very much. They have good aircrafts for their aircraft carriers. Between the bests for all the countries that design not their own fighters for aircraft carriers.

About MiG as brand, the people must not forget that their main product in recent decades has been the MiG-25/31. On Fighter Interceptors they are leaders in Russia and Worldwide. It makes that MiG has not problems to survive as brand, while the concept of Fighter Interceptor remains successfull, and this is assured because the Fighters (FAS, FMR) evolved recently in a form where the speed is not their main feature.

MiG-29K/KUB airplanes are deployed on aircraft-capable ships with a minimum displacement of 28,000 tons (equipped with take-off ramps and landing arresting gear) as well as on land-based airfields.

Gunship wrote:there's no 29k anymore now MiG offers only 35.

they hve full right to complain, they paid money and received failed product.

Q. Have we set a time frame for the purchase of the 57 fighter jets?
We have floated a Request for Information (RfI) and received replies from the original equipment manufacturers of four carrier-based fighter jets. We are right now examining the proposals. I am confident the Request for Bid (RfB) can be floated by the end of 2019. The four fighters include Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen, the Russian MiG-29K and Dassault’s Rafale. The aircraft should meet the qualitative requirements of a carried deck-based fighter. We will examine the proposals and take it forward.

Q. Is there any progress in the proposal to acquire a third aircraft carrier?
We are working with the ministry for the acquisition of a third aircraft carrier and I am hopeful we will get the approval in principle soon. The plan is to build an indigenous conventionally powered Catapult Assisted Take-off, Barrier Assisted Recovery (CATOBAR) aircraft carrier.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I hope more from RuAF will come. This would be a great move to support Indian AF tender.

Indeed, I think without a decided push from RuAF all claims about the maturity and capability of the plane will lack credibility, and MiG will lack the resources and operational base to iron out all the issues.

LMFS wrote:

Well, first of all there is nothing anything about building large or small CVN. Only not to be bullied i.e. unacceptable damage also by non nuclear means if Im correct. NO info about displacement.

That was not my claim, rather the mention of separate classes assault ships and CV. But until now have only found this on pieces commenting the naval strategy and further comments from MIC people. Still have to check the full 2015 document in detail but as said it seems very broad. Probably nothing clear until this spring.

LMFS wrote:

So we can be sure that ship groupings with powerful punch will be created. Will s be classical approach as USN CSGs? IMHO highly unlikely.

They will create carriers. They will not allow USN to have clear superiority (or at least they will try). It would be interesting that they create carriers but don't try to reach a certain capability match with USN in terms maybe not of strike potential but at least of fleet defence. What would be the mission of those carriers then, if their planes are clearly fewer and less capable than USN ones? On the contrary, their best chance to reach deterring capability is by having better, longer ranged planes than USN, which is now within reach due to some really bad strategic decisions on the US side in the recent past.

LMFS wrote:

Drones?  long range hypersonic missiles? yep.

Yes, this is not incompatible with having long range heavy fighters + AWACS on those carriers.

LMFS wrote:

Gzur alone lets you control 7mln km2 with combat radius of aviation close to 0.

If in your opinion those missiles are enough to defend the fleet, why to build carriers?

LMFS wrote:

ekhm well and any contract signed last 6 years? any fighters built last 3-4 years? any tender in calendar booked? MiG-35 was offered to Ru
Navy recently or MiG-29k?

How many carrier-borne fighters does RuN need? If all, the MiG-29K is the least dead of all Russian naval fighters since it is the newest and the last ordered one. Still do not understand what you mean by saying they made the MiG-29K disappear...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.

USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.

Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.

As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...

BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?

AWACS is not level of detail in strategy docs but surely this or another way will be implemented. If Russians dont want to build large CV with catapults then very likley tiltrotor and or drone is gonna perform AEW function...

Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.

Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows        all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.

From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.

Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.

Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.

it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.

The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.

The MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters structure is based upon the following achievements obtained on the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2 aircraft:
– increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;
– increased fuel capacity, in-flight refueling and possibility of using as a tanker;
– airframe & main systems anti-corrosion protection technology which meets the standards developed for carrier-based aircraft thus simplifying fighters operation in tropical weather conditions;
– significantly reduced radar signature;
– three channel fly-by-wire control system with quadruple redundancy.

New unified family of the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters
In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.

Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.

LMFS wrote:

USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.

Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.

LMFS wrote:

Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.

Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.

LMFS wrote:

As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...

2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.

LMFS wrote:

BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?

You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.

"LMFS"

]Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.

See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.

850km MiG vs. 1240km F-35C

LMFS wrote:

Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows        all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.

F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.

You forget that navalized version is heavier (20% + for F-35) so without serious redesign you wont have same payload nor range. Anyway Russian deck fighter will be suited to Russian doctrine so far payload and stealth are traded for  stol and agility. So more to be fighters then strike aircraft.


Seriously? large did you see size of Su-57 in comparison?

LMFS wrote:

From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.

Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.

Su-57 is great fighter but time does not stand still either.  Its design was started in 2004. In 2030 will be a quarter of century old to newest tech advancements. Im sure that  process wil be twofold:
1) keeping PAK FA in pair of completion (ideally ahead of)
2) working on totally new platform with clean "robotic" design and very likely DEW weapons

LMFS wrote:

Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.

Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?

to me looks like not only air-war with USN is in  Russian agenda. Syria like conflicts, flag waving.  Strong ship armament wont exclude 20-30 airwing size. But you save on escort size having same effect.

BTW
NYT I quoted in thso ot carrier thread is ~$50,000, let Russian will be 50% of that. 200hrs per year is what $5m per fighter, you add 100 more you have a destroyer er year less only because you decided to have large airwing. With no actual change in effects.

LMFS wrote:

Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.

But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?

there will be never parity, cannot be. Im not sure why it is so hard for you to understand it. USN deck aviation only has more ~50% fighters then all Russian air force. What parity are you talking about? without asymmetrical approach Russians cannot win. That's why you see Kinzhals, GZURS, Zircons.

Budget nominally is 15x more PPP is 8x

LMFS wrote:
it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.

These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:Today, excluding the last Harriers, only the Rafale and the F-35 are used in aircraft carriers of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. The Rafale is optimized likely for the use in their own aircraft carrier, that is of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. Thanks to it, can be better addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers, but this means not that is better than the MiG-29 K.

French just better made navalization of Rafale. You always pay performance penalty on deck version. But Im sure that F-18 can also use skijump.

Surely it would be possible to do a variant of the MiG-29/35 well addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers. Very likely only introducing some small modifications over the MiG-29K basis, at the cost of reducing a little the payload, and as consequence, the firepower.

there's no 29k anymore now MiG offers only 35.

India should not complain very much. They have good aircrafts for their aircraft carriers. Between the bests for all the countries that design not their own fighters for aircraft carriers.

they hve full right to complain, they paid money and received failed product.

About MiG as brand, the people must not forget that their main product in recent decades has been the MiG-25/31. On Fighter Interceptors they are leaders in Russia and Worldwide. It makes that MiG has not problems to survive as brand, while the concept of Fighter Interceptor remains successfull, and this is assured because the Fighters (FAS, FMR) evolved recently in a form where the speed is not their main feature.

MiG is just nw a virtual barnd of OAK same as Sukhoi or Yak. They will survive but 29k  fail is really sad for PR and 35 competitivness on market.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.

Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.

USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.

Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.

Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.

Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.

As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...

2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.

BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?

You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.

AWACS is not level of detail in strategy docs but surely this or another way will be implemented. If Russians dont want to build large CV with catapults then very likley tiltrotor and or drone is gonna perform AEW function...

Yes, I don't know. In any case its performance must be top of the line or they will lose at that point the possibility to match their potential opponents. Either a conventional AWACS like the E-2 or a tilt-rotor will be newly developed so Russia has some freedom of choice there and I guess they will aim for the best.

Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.

See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.

Long or short range is relative to your rivals of course.

Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows        all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.

F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.
 

From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.

Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.

Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.

Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?

Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.

But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?

it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.

These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.

And in any case, MiG-35 uses the same airframe of the K and M with some further refinements, especially in terms of avionics:

The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.

https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-35/

The MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters structure is based upon the following achievements obtained on the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2 aircraft:
– increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;
– increased fuel capacity, in-flight refueling and possibility of using as a tanker;
– airframe & main systems anti-corrosion protection technology which meets the standards developed for carrier-based aircraft thus simplifying fighters operation in tropical weather conditions;
– significantly reduced radar signature;
– three channel fly-by-wire control system with quadruple redundancy.

http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

New unified family of the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters
In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.

http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:Today, excluding the last Harriers, only the Rafale and the F-35 are used in aircraft carriers of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. The Rafale is optimized likely for the use in their own aircraft carrier, that is of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. Thanks to it, can be better addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers, but this means not that is better than the MiG-29 K.

French just better made navalization of Rafale. You always pay performance penalty on deck version. But Im sure that F-18 can also use skijump.

Surely it would be possible to do a variant of the MiG-29/35 well addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers. Very likely only introducing some small modifications over the MiG-29K basis, at the cost of reducing a little the payload, and as consequence, the firepower.

there's no 29k anymore now MiG offers only 35.

India should not complain very much. They have good aircrafts for their aircraft carriers. Between the bests for all the countries that design not their own fighters for aircraft carriers.

they hve full right to complain, they paid money and received failed product.

About MiG as brand, the people must not forget that their main product in recent decades has been the MiG-25/31. On Fighter Interceptors they are leaders in Russia and Worldwide. It makes that MiG has not problems to survive as brand, while the concept of Fighter Interceptor remains successfull, and this is assured because the Fighters (FAS, FMR) evolved recently in a form where the speed is not their main feature.

MiG is just nw a virtual barnd of OAK same as Sukhoi or Yak. They will survive but 29k  fail is really sad for PR and 35 competitivness on market.

I do not agree. The Rafale is optimized for the size of the French aircraft carrier, and the MiG-29 K was very likely optimized for the Project 11435.

It means the Rafale is better for aircraft carriers of 45000 tons, but very likely the MiG-29 K and the Su-33 are better for aircraft carriers of 60000 tons. And it said with some reserve because Im not totally sure about the compatibility of the Rafale with the Indian Project 11434 aircraft carrier.

The F-18 seems not used in aircraft carriers of this size. And the F-35 must probe still to be not an underperformer.

Basically India has enough MiG-29K for the two aircraft carriers. My previous comment was more about the design of a new "variant" from the basis of the MiG-29K to work with the aircrafts like if it would be a "modernization", because likely the replacement of some component can be required. The operation in the smaller Indian aircraft carrier means bigger tensions on take off and landing for a big and powerfull aircraft in relative terms like the MiG-29 K. It seems to produce some failure by fatigue. To correct it requires not a big structural reinforcement.

If India would be smart they would try to do the reinforcement themselves with Russian assistance, and likely they would learn something.

In the refered to the future of MiG, the project that will mark the future position of strength or weakness of the brand is clearly the MiG-41.

kumbor wrote:USAF FA-XX is still only paper project. It is still not even shown as a model. By 2030s USAF will have FA-XX? In what dream! Obviously it will be another trillion dollar project of unknown quality!

LMFS wrote:

kumbor wrote:USAF FA-XX is still only paper project. It is still not even shown as a model. By 2030s USAF will have FA-XX? In what dream! Obviously it will be another trillion dollar project of unknown quality!

I think they need to be significantly faster and more practical now Russia and China can field better naval fighters than them in a relatively short term, and they now it, so I would not expect the same blunders in this project than with F-35. It is quite possible that they are being specially secretive with the two ongoing 6G projects in order to negate Russia and China any useful info, now the big power struggle is on again. They may have advanced conceptual design and base technologies, variable cycle engine for instance is in the works since quite a while. But unless they are working full steam under state secrecy and have us all fooled, my guess is the plane would not be ready before 2040. In contrast, a Su-57K could be ready by 2025 or so.

• According to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, in 2019 and in the short term, work will be carried out to further enhance the combat stability of submarines by further improving the characteristics of their secrecy, increasing the combat capabilities of countermeasures and self-defense.
  
  
• In the future, the basis of the groupings of ships in the ocean zone will be frigates and large amphibious ships, which have increased combat capabilities in terms of  attack and defensive potential.
  
  
• Work will continue on the creation of ships of the "destroyer" class and the "universal landing ship"
  
  
• "In order to combat capabilities of the Marine Corps as a separate kind of forces of the Navy, in the medium term, it is planned to create and adopt for the armament a series of naval infantry vehicles to deliver troops by sea to the place of the combat mission, destruction and destruction of the enemy armored personnel support fire assault at all stages of the combat mission.
  

GarryB wrote:

This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

So the failed MiG-29 which is ordered, produced and in service with the Russian Navy is a failure, but you are pinning your hopes on STOVL that has been cancelled in the past with no production super successful and powerful Yak-41s and other drawings...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:

This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

So the failed MiG-29 which is ordered, produced and in service with the Russian Navy is a failure, but you are pinning your hopes on STOVL that has been cancelled in the past with no production super successful and powerful Yak-41s and other drawings...

dont listen, if you mix reality with fanboyish fantasies. RuNavy decided to switch plans for VSTOL as soon as they started using 29k. Other facts only proved MiG-29k was fail. IMHO an epic one.
l

Isos wrote:

This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers. Many nation are converting their heli carrier into aircraft carrier thanks to f-35. Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.

GarryB wrote:

Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

Why even mention a 100KT carrier?

GB wrote: hey operated the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov class and decided what they decided in the 1980s that they want something slightly bigger than a Kuznetsov class with catapults and bigger fighters.

ie They want Ulyanovsk carriers with Su-57s.

GB\" wrote:It might be of the new cat hull design and it could even be lighter than a Kuznetsov, but its capacity will be slightly bigger than Kuznetsov and instead of Granits it will have UKSK launchers. It will also have Poliment/Redut, and it will have short range air defence systems and it will have S-500 air defence systems.

GB wrote:It might even have some STOVL fighters, but I would not hold my breath on that...

GB wrote:

This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers.

It has just upgraded its far east shipyard to handle ships up to 350KTs... why do you think they can't build large carriers?

GB wrote:

Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.

You could just as easily say that a deep modernisation of the MiG-29K could lead to victories against all modern fighter types... by the time the Kuznetsov is back in the water in the mid-2020s the MiG could easily have a modern AESA radar and L band AESA sensors that render F-35 stealth meaningless, so the cost of purchase and operation mean it will remain in service for the next 40 years.

GB wrote: The people complaining about the MiG and claiming the STOVL will solve all of Russias problems remind me of Vann complaining about Putin and saying a more aggressive and simpler leader is what Russia needs right now...