It is the utility of carriers that is decreasing world wide.

Perhaps this is so, but that doesn’t mean anyone is going to stop building them. If anyone was likely to jump off the wagon, it would be Russia — unlike the United States it is not over-committed to the platform, and unlike China, India, France, UK and Brazil it does not need them for symbolic reasons. But if Russia was planning to do this there would’ve been no MiG-29K order and Gorshkov would likely already be gone. If 2-3 carriers are of limited utility, one is well-nigh useless and an extraordinary waste of limited RuN resources. The continued operation of Gorshkov makes sense only if there are additional carriers in Russia’s future.

No need to fight! Lightning, Draken, and Hunter all look good … as does Phantom for that matter.

From the enthusiast perspective, one of the more unfortunate aspects of industry and project consolidation and the exit of some nations from the game entirely is the loss of variety; this is an aesthetic loss, a loss of cultural expression, and also narrows the possibilities for discussion. Going forward, instead of having F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, A-10, Tornado and Phantom to talk about, compare, and drool over we will have … F-35. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m already sick of that aircraft. :p

Russian Defense Ministry intends to develop based on the Yak-130 is a new strike aircraft
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/06/05/256530.html

So this is being revived. In preference to modernised Su-25? (Su-39M?)

The general said that the establishment of such an aircraft would require upgrading standard engine AI-222-25, with an increase in thrust to 3000 lbs.

Not quite sure how to interpret this given that the engine currently delivers in excess of 5000lbs static thrust. An increase of 3000lbs also seems implausible unless referring to an afterburner…

EDIT: maybe an increase of 3000lbs for the aircraft, i.e. +1500lbs per engine? This would still represent a near 30% increase in thrust, but is perhaps plausible if the current variant is detuned for the trainer role…

PAK-DA, upgrade to bomber fleet, air refuellers will practically delay or abandoned the need of carriers. Hypersonic missiles will need larger aircraft . and modern BMD ships are much more effective in area defence.
2 to 3 carriers means realistically only one in operations with medium size short range aircraft. no even enough to deal with Libya.

Without getting into a debate about the utility of aircraft carriers for Russia, I think it is reasonable to assume that there will be future aircraft carriers for Russia. I think four would be the optimal number, but I don’t know if Russia can afford this. Frankly, if Russia doesn’t intend to expand its carrier capabilities in future then Gorshkov should’ve been decommissioned years ago.

Speculating on the fine-grained details of contract negotiations from the public vantage point is a complete waste of time. It is entirely expected that each partner will attempt to secure the best possible deal for themselves. The negotiations will ultimately succeed because neither France nor India can afford to let them fail. Until then, there is little for us to do but wait.

What’s the latest on A-40 MPA/ASW — is this definitely going ahead?

As for Fulcrum for Air Force vs. Navy … realistically Russian carrier capabilities are still in skills maintenance mode; the objective with MiG-29K was to get fresh airframes at low cost; RuAF is now operating in a higher gear. It will only be from mid-2020s that we see the true emergence of Russian carrier capability, with multiple new carriers (at least two, hopefully three) paired with new aircraft, i.e. LMFS.

Wow, some great shots there.

EDIT: Youtube link for those who prefer it to Vimeo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQquk5ql8y8