Growth potential is not simply a matter of airframe size, but more of how many space is left with the planned configuration for new equipement and how easy can it be incooperated. The areodynamics of the Flanker is definitely very good, but you can see differences in performance. Also they are not so significant.

where is the growth potential of EF/Rafale? they are no better than MIG-29SMT/OVT or F-16blck50. Flanker is in totally different class. just look at 5 stand off weopons of 300KM each in one go with full BVR complement and no drag of fuel tanks.

PRO MEMORIA… 😀

Putin, what a shame you addle-head!!!

so show me any other country which is buying this much quantity with its own money?(not with some one else ). alteast he is not wasting like soviet union.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060414/46384602.html
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti defense commentator Viktor Litovkin)

Russia will announce changes in its strategic nuclear capability by the end of the year, said Yury Solomonov, head and chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT), the designer of ground- and sea-launched nuclear missiles.

The chief designer, who has the ground-launched Topol-M (SS-25 Sickle) and the sea-launched Bulava-30 (SS-NX-30) intercontinental ballistic missile systems on his record, did not enlarge on details but stated that Moscow would have no less than 2,000 nuclear warheads by 2011, when the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will be nearing expiry. This is in line with the SORT’s requiring that both sides should reduce their nuclear stockpiles to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 31, 2012.

The statement was prompted by a question how Russia was going to maintain the SORT-approved number of warheads as many decommissioned 10-MIRV R-36MUTTKh/R-36M2 Voevodas (SS-18 Satan) and six-MIRV UR-100NUTTKhs (SS-19 Stiletto) were being replaced every year by single-warhead silo-based and road-mobile RT-2PM2 Topol-Ms.

“I cannot answer this question in detail right now,” Solomonov said. “This is a confidential issue pertaining to the relations between our country and the United States. However, we are going to notify Washington of upcoming changes in our strategic nuclear forces within two months, and, I think, the information will become public by the end of the year.”

Importantly, Solomonov said Russia was ahead of the rest of the world in missile defense penetration capability by at least 15 to 20 years. In the light of his earlier remarks that technologically both new missiles could carry no less than three warheads, defense experts are now convinced the announced changes will have to do with the number of warheads per missile.

Moreover, media reports, citing Moscow’s recent disclosure of a six-MIRV Bulava, designed as part of Russia’s effort to implement the Memorandum to START I (expires in 2009), suggested the number of MIRVs per missile was likely to grow to 10 shortly.

Solomonov made two other remarks that look important enough if put together. As the first road mobile missile regiment is to enter active service in 2008, the SS-NX-30 also has a three-year flight test program ahead, which means that the first Bulava-armed nuclear submarine Yury Dolgoruky (Project 955 Borei) will be commissioned in the same year and, probably, that the date should be seen as the next landmark for the qualitative development of Russia’s nuclear capability

i think we were discussing anti-ship Kh-31a not the anti-radiation.

Ey man, don’t tell them the truth. They don’t like it. That is the reason they start threads like
– How to bring down a B-2
– How Iran can conquer the whole world with brave die-happy revolutionaries
– How many devilish intruders have been downed by heros in MiGs
– How did the USA plan 9/11
…….

If it comes to the decision to
– either back the USA and Europe against Iran
– help Iran against USA and Europe indirectly or directly,
the decision is easy.

Iran will be dropped like a hot potato. That is the problem of China and Russia: They are so dependand on the west, because their economy is totally focussed on exports. Some may argue, that China would need the Iranian oil. Though, they do, but to pay it they need US Dollars which have to be earned with cheap Walmart stuff. China is definetly no world power although it is gaining momentum (China has less GDP than Germany and the Euro zone has more than three times as much, funnily nobody considers Germany a superpower).
Russia made a very quick step down to a weak regional power, at the moment struggling to keep its influence at the edges (Ukrain, Czenyia, Georgien).

But man, please don’t say it too loud.

r u sure that Russia is weak power? Russia/Saudis/Iran has total control over world Oil. they can chose what the world reserve currency will be . no one can standup to them.

http://www.interfax.com/3/144880/news.aspx
MOSCOW. April 4 (Interfax) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
has announced plans to visit Saudi Arabia.
“An invitation has arrived and I am planning to pay a visit to
Saudi Arabia in May,” Lavrov said at a meeting with Saudi National
Security Council Secretary Prince Bandar Bin Sultan in Moscow on
Tuesday.

Star

Dont try shifting the goalposts – you asked: “Which aircraft carrier on stand alone basis can face Flanker force backed with AWACS?” then went on to “Carrier aircraft has shorter range to begin so how can it even reach airbases where Flanker is parked? and land aircraft can be launched and land in multiple airbases”. You were fairly clearly splitting the issue into land-based Flankers against a Carrier Air Wing. Thats not what Scooter was asking about.

u started first by saying limited offensive capability against land based AWACS coverage. I just extended which other carrier can do more in same circumstances?

Dont quite get your points I’m afraid. The Mig-29 comment is cryptic but indisputable. The Su-33 thing – well we’ve seen the Russian Navy variant and could legitimately use that as a baseline. If anything, by your logic there, the Su-33 would be the aircraft we could define a better theoretical model for as there are no service Sea Fulcrums of any description yet!?. The comment about a land based Il-76 AWACS compared to an E-2 is innaccurate I’m afraid as the E-2’s job is much, much easier and, unless its forward supporting a strike package, it’ll usually be on station at most a few hundred miles from its ‘airbase’. The small size of the platform is therefore not quite the handicap you would presume.

and do u seriously think that short range MIG-29 can provide 24 hr protection to what ever AEW the carrier has against the waves of Flanker backed with AWACS. Flanker simply has 1.5 times more staying staying power than MIG. It can in and out of the battlefied at will. it can carry 1.5 times more BVRs. so it can pick its targets one by one which MIG cant do because of short range.
compare this Su-33KUB with MIG-29K radar.
http://www.royfc.com/news/jul/2303jul01.html

For example USN carrier ops off the Soviet Far Eastern coastline and round Murmansk. There are some great stories knocking round the net from an ex Hawkeye guy I used to talk to, Cdr Andy Pico, of the fun they used to have at the AV-MF’s expense.

at its relevance to this situation?

Star,

I wrote: ‘we’re talking about the deployable airwing of a Kuznetsov class carrier’

u wrote this. i asked which other carrier can do offensive operations in face of land based AWACS coverage?

Neither carrier offers sufficient capability to conduct offensive operations in the face of the opponents land-based AWACS coverage (which presumably by the time both of these vessels would be operational both would posses!!).

This is after all what we’re talking about. More specifically, in case you’re not following, this would be the airwing of a theoretical Chinese Kuznetsov backed by, equally theoretical, PLAAF/PLANAF AWACS cover.

theoretically MIG-29K didnot exist before so it was created. so cannot deduce from current Su-33 how the actual Su-33 will be like the bigger Su-33KUB. and IL-76 is longer range platform so it will sniff out carrier further in high seas than what ever small AWACS a carrier has to look for aircrafts inside airbases.

We aren’t figuring in land based tacair so the “a single aircraft carrier even if supported by defensive ships is pretty much useless against decent size airforce.” comment is pretty much moot. Even if it was an accurate statement – which its not. Carriers have operated in the face of a ‘decent size’ airforce perfectly happily!. The key to doing it is comprehensive battlespace surveillance though – which neither carrier mentioned by Scooter will have.

for example?

powered by NPO Saturn’s twin AL-41FP turbofans with thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles,

Is this a twin engine aircraft? considering the time and money IAF is going to spend on this project its better to stick with 5th generation design with incremental improvements over time.