Before starting to build a new carrier, the Russian Navy needs to determine the design features which allows the carrier air wing to operate in a pre-planned manner – e.g. sortie rates, aircraft types/size/weight/launchspeed/landing speed, fuel/sensor/weapons loadouts, mission planning/intelligence/networking/communication, and subsurface/surface/air/space defenses. Which means the Russian Navy has already developed a CONOP for the new carrier and its air wing.

True, there has been a LOT of discussion (and probably will be still a lot) but if they have settled for a concrete path they should have taken a lot of important decisions. Having a clear strategy is no small thing.

I doubt the new carrier will be a modernized Kuznetsov, because the K was designed to provide a screen of A2A missile-armed fighters in support of massive AShM attacks against NATO convoys and largely ignored operations against shore targets. Soviet naval aircraft of that era couldn’t launch with heavy weights of bombs and fuel. This was verified during recent operations against Syria rebels where only a small load of bombs were carried, even with the Kuznetsov parked just off the Syrian coast.

I don’t think land strike will be the main role of the carrier’s air wing. They are making their naval fighters multirole, true, but I think the main job is still defence of the fleet. RuN has no use and no numbers in foreseeable future to replicate USN approach of massive strikes against land targets.

Regarding TO weights of the naval fighters: springboard can launch fighters at full or almost full weight, see here:

http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

This claim that STOBAR carriers are not effective holds not much merit from what I have seen and seems rather an axiom that journos repeat without much thought. Besides, newer planes with higher TWR and better low speed characteristics only improve the situation. And in the end you will need full fuel frequently, but how often will you need full weapons payload? Full A2A load is quite light for modern carrying capacities. A massive A2G load with i.e. 4 x 1500 kg bombs (don’t even know if the pylons of any plane stand that) is still “only” 6 tons. In the Russian case it is even better, since their heavy fighters don’t normally operate with EFTs, so a very big part of the most common external load in Western fighters is simply not there. I see more use in capability to carry oversized, long range AShM. For that use, a big and heavy airframe is needed, but the load is not going to be above 2-3 tons.

As for Syria, I have seen really few aircraft operating there with big ordnance loads. It does not seem like they needed them primarily but rather good target intelligence and bombing precision. The concept of limited intervention leaves the heavy lifting to the local ground troops while the Russian air power just takes care of high value or very specific targets. It is much better so than having to flatten a country with the use of air power.

It will be interesting to see how the new carrier design develops. As a contrast, USN as defined “sea control” as the CVN’s primary mission. CVNs will not be used to support strikes against inland targets because doing so is too risky. So the CVNs will not approach the enemy coast until USAF has neutralized the air/surface/space threat.

That must be new, do you have a link?

Probably they can this time ask the Chinese for help? :angel:

Given this timeline and surely including additional delays, the PLAN is surely close to launch their 004 carrier by that time.

If the Chinese have a good shipbuilding industry that is great for them, but how does that help rebuilding the Russian one? That is the final goal, not to give workload and know-how to foreign shipyards. And these are extremely sensitive technologies and designs, so this is a no go IMO. A floating dock can be ordered abroad, a carrier, never. Besides, let’s not forget that both China and India are still using soviet carriers either directly or as base design, so Russians still should think they have an edge in terms of design, materials and so on. What could make sense would be the cooperation to design EMALS, ideally between Russia / India / China, but maybe this is asking too much of the relationship between the later. That thing will be expensive for any single user to develop and it may be good to find partners.

What costly retrofits are you referring to?

Concurrency costs. Since they are a burden, you go for them if the other alternative (not having the planes in the air force or having to refurbish 4G ones) is worse. I was just meaning that this early production did not come for free either, since the planes were not 100% combat ready. Who says PAK-FA could not have been produced in such conditions since two or three years?

[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER]

Not that this discussion serves the Su-57 thread in any way, but I have to raise the flag when you try to compare the merge & renaming of programs that led to JSF with the clean slate PAK-FA design from Sukhoi, as if it had originated in the MFI /Su-47. Of curse a company will use what they have learned previously in other programs, but MFI’s effort was the Su-47 and PAK-FA is the Su-57. Trying to relate both is too much of a stretch not to be called out, since approach, parameters and requirements of both planes are worlds apart. And worse, this stunt only serves to justify the point that PAK-FA has been poorly led and bears no fruit while JSF already can boast of some hundreds of planes, despite them needing costly retrofits and management efforts. So, nothing but a childish discussion, again, which is more about emotions than substance. Can we go back to facts please?

Russia plans to manufacture 12 upgraded Project 22350M frigates – source

According to the source, a project plan for a vessel with a displacement of 7,000 tons and a capability of carrying up to 48 Kalibr, Oniks and Tsirkon cruise missiles will be finalized by the yearend

Russia plans to manufacture 12 upgraded Project 22350M frigates capable of carrying each up to 48 Kalibr, Oniks and Tsirkon cruise missiles, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday. “The lead vessel in this series is planned to be commissioned to the Navy in 2027,” the source said.
According to the source, “a project plan for a vessel with a displacement of 7,000 tons and a capability of carrying up to 48 Kalibr, Oniks and Tsirkon cruise missiles will be finalized by the yearend.”
“In all, 12 frigates of this class are planned to be manufactured, with 11 out of them to be commissioned to the customer within the frames of the new state arms procurement program,” the source added.
TASS does not yet have an official confirmation of this information.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1057638

Actually, I suspect that the most important “technology demonstrator” for the PAKFA project was probably the Su-37 in the 1990s – certainly with regard to the fly-by-wire flight control systems and TVC. Come to think of it, the Su-35S could also be considered a tech demonstrator as well?

Of course, the famous “evolutionary” development model. In every step of the development there was a B plan in place, like Su-35 and 1st stage engine. There are lots of risk management measures all over the program, as it should be.

EDIT: To be clearer, the technology demonstrator is just a risk management measure. It is not mandatory to have one specific design for that purpose in the program if the risks inherent to the involved technologies can be addressed on already existing planes or in other other ways. No use in always trying to find the equivalents to the typical US categories in the Russian development model.

[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]

Considering the sourcing volumes for Russian aircraft we see normally (both in units per year and in total number of ordered units per contract), I don’t know exactly what weight the economies of scale would have here. I haven’t seen serious deviations in contract prices from one batch to another in planes like Su-35S or 30SM, but the official announcements also don’t provide a lot of detail. In any case I don’t expect them to buy more than the customary 8-14 units per year at any time of the program and I doubt they are holding production due mainly to economy.

As to the training and infrastructure costs to operate the planes, they are really spreading those along many years since only 15 units are foreseen by now, which would be one squadron plus training planes. On the other hand I would expect VKS putting a lot of focus in avoiding Su-57 being a hangar queen, which Russian military does not need at all and has no capacity to handle. For instance the technology to detect cracks in the composites that they built in the airframe instead of needing specialised equipment shows a clear effort to transition to the newer technologies without imposing a big burden on the operation of the plane. But of course much of the technology in the plane is completely new in the RuAF so it is true a lot of training and testing of operational procedures will be needed. That is IMO one of the reasons they are not hurrying buying big amounts by now.

Russian upgraded Su-25 attack aircraft to get sighting system with artificial intelligence

© Yuri Smityuk/TASS

MOSCOW, May 8. /TASS/. Russia’s upgraded Su-25SM3 attack aircraft will get an onboard target acquisition and sighting system with artificial intelligence elements to allow pilots to strike designated targets actually without their participation, a source in the defense industry told TASS on Wednesday.
“As part of further upgrade of attack aircraft, the latest Su-25SM3 versions will be furnished with a new sighting system. It will be fully automated and a pilot will only have to select a target on the screen and all the rest will be done by artificial intelligence,” the source said.

The target acquisition system with artificial intelligence will be able to independently identify hostile targets, keep them in sight and guide missiles. The new technology has been integrated into the unified troop command and control system, which allows mapping an optimal route towards the target and the trajectory of using weapons. Upgraded attack aircraft will also be able to receive data on targets from external sources through the command and control system.
A source in the aircraft-building industry earlier told TASS that the upgraded Mi-28NM attack helicopter would get a similar system with artificial intelligence.

As Editor-in-Chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland journal Viktor Murakhovsky told TASS, the new system is capable of accomplishing a whole range of tasks. “This includes re-targeting during a flight, the issuance of new flight assignments and integration into the battlefield reconnaissance and information space,” he said.
The new target acquisition system really features artificial intelligence elements, the chief editor said. “When picking a target, the aircraft’s onboard information and control system automatically maps the most optimal route towards this target in compliance with the selected tactics… The system can also offer options for employing the weapon payload against such a target, the variants of tactical and air maneuvers with regard to this target,” the expert explained.
Besides, the attack aircraft equipped with this system can guide weapons using target acquisition from external sources, the expert said.
“It can get target acquisition from ground-based hardware, for example, from the Strelets reconnaissance, control and communications system [part of the Ratnik soldier combat gear],” the expert concluded.
The Su-25SM3 is a modernized version of the Su-25 attack aircraft. The plane is capable of destroying small-size ground installations and air targets at any time of day or night. The attack aircraft’s combat efficiency has increased threefold compared to other modifications. As distinct from its predecessors, the upgraded aircraft is equipped with the Glonass satellite navigation system that offers a possibility of programming a final point on the map with an accuracy of up to 10 meters while the cockpit has a digital display with an option of projecting the ground and air situation.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1057440

you also have to look at this in the light of concurrency. The slow start might help save money further down the road, unlike F-35 where they just pump out several scores of jet from the first years, only to have the jets semi functional due to changes when the 3rd or 4th year comes around, by then having already spent Billions on jets that would not go to the Frontline or require massive upgrades again..
A slow start might give KnAAZ the time and chance to make any last effort changes if need be, without the need to spend money on fixing the prior jets.

True, especially considering the 2nd stage engine is apparently going to be retrofitted in the serial units that are produced prior to its availability. That should be 15 units, at least that is what sources report as being foreseen in the state armament program.

On the other hand, I assume KnAAZ will take care of readying the production line rather than making adjustments the to plane. This is the reason for the pilot series of any product.

[USER=”29017″]ActionJackson[/USER]

IIRC 510 and 511 were already representative of the final status of the plane. No HW redesign is expected before 2nd stage engine from what I have read.

[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER]

Prototypes: sourced and produced on a unit base, by hand or with general purpose tooling.
Series: produced in a purpose-built line with specific tooling and processes and sourced as a batch.

Anyone with experience in the industry can tell you all this difference implies. I understand what you mean and agree the sense of the serial production is to handle bigger numbers in a reliable and economical way, but in the end the volume output of the line does not determine if the production is serial or not, the processes do. And again a serial production contract in Russian jet fighter industry is hardly going to mean more than 10-14 units per year with production lines that are going to be kept open for decades, so quite differently to US case. In US the goal seems to be to use economies of scale with a production as brief and intense as possible, in Russia the goal is to spread the workload to avoid peaks and hence keep the staffing and production capabilities stable for many years. They use very different approaches from which different results can be expected.

Contracted to create a super-heavy transport to replace the An-124 “Ruslan” report “Ilyushin”

07.05.2019 12:00:01
Moscow. May 7. INTERFAX – Signed a contract to develop a super-heavy transport aircraft to replace the Ukrainian An-124 “Ruslan”, the annual report of JSC “Il”.
“In the framework of development of works on creation of superheavy military transport aircraft (STWD) completed the pre-contract phase of work concluded the state contract on performance of 3-5 stages of the ROC “STTS”, – stated in the document, published Tuesday in the Center of corporate disclosure.
According to the report, in 2018 the company “Ilyushin” was also conducted preliminary work for implementation of scientific-research work “Research of ways of creation of a perspective aviation complex of the military transport aviation (NIR PAK VTA)”.
In addition, Il continues work on modernization and restoration of health and life extension of aircraft type An-124 with engines D-18T.
In August 2018, the UAC President Yury Slyusar told Interfax that the possible shape of the perspective plane of the military transport aviation PAK VTA discussed with the defense Ministry. “We are now discussing with the Ministry of defence, the possible appearance of this aircraft, what characteristics he must possess, and so on. There are developments in this direction. But to proceed directly to the creation of a new car, we can only after all these issues with the customer,” – said Yu. Slyusar.
Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said that Russia will start research work (SRW) to create a new super-heavy transport to replace the “Ruslan” after 2025. “They Kirovskom plan at the end of the GPV (state armaments program for 2018 – 2027 years – Interfax)”, – said Yuri Borisov to journalists, answering a question about plans to develop a new heavy aircraft to replace the An-124.
In Russia the production of the An-124 ceased in 2003, but continues deep modernization and maintenance of airworthiness of the aircraft. During the period of existence of the Ulyanovsk aviation complex made 36 units An-124.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=507664&lang=RU