Su-75 Checkmate fighter will allow Russia to acquire an aircraft carrier fleet

January 27 2022 52

Continuing the theme of the aircraft carrier fleet that Russia needs. Having outlined the dimensions of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, it is necessary to talk about which aircraft should be based on it and for what tasks.

Why does Russia really need aircraft carriers

Unfortunately, few topics are as defamatory in the media and the blogosphere as the aircraft carrier. It is difficult to understand why this question causes such unmotivated aggression in some of our compatriots and almost a gag reflex to another model of a promising Russian aircraft carrier. Perhaps it is the carefully suppressed envy of the US Navy as the Maybach of a mayor or governor that the average person will never have. And everything would be fine, but the fact is that in this way the most important issue of ensuring the national security of our country is transferred to a freak zone, and this is unacceptable!

Literally in a nutshell, we will say again why Russia needs aircraft carriers. Not for the "image of a superpower." Not in order to "chase the Papuans." Not to fight for the atolls with the US Navy AUG somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

Aircraft carriers are vital for the Russian Navy to ensure the safe deployment of our strategic nuclear submarines before a nuclear strike on the enemy. Naturally, he, the enemy, will prevent this in every possible way by sending his anti-submarine aircraft and hunter submarines to hunt down and destroy our SSBNs. In theory, our surface fleet should cover the SSBN, but the cat cried large combat-ready ships in it, the sea-based air defense system is rather weak and simply cannot withstand the massive air strike of the American AUG carrier-based aircraft fighters. Considering the quantity and quality of the US Navy, namely, they are assumed by our enemy, the Boreys have very few chances to survive and fulfill their combat mission, that is, a retaliatory nuclear strike may not work.

In other words, without adequate cover, the naval component of our "nuclear triad" is practically defenseless, its use turns into "Russian roulette", luck or no luck. And if you're not lucky?

For air defense coverage of the SSBN deployment area, we need our own aircraft carriers, which will drive away enemy anti-submarine aircraft and its carrier-based aircraft, preventing fighters from reaching a comfortable distance of delivering a massive missile attack on our ships, intercepting cruise missiles and linking them up in battle. Anti-submarine helicopters based on the deck of an aircraft carrier will have to track and destroy enemy multi-purpose submarines hunting for our SSBNs. This is the real and main task of Soviet and Russian aircraft carriers, and not the capture of African countries or the battle for the atolls. Air support for amphibious assaults and air strikes along the coast are just a useful bonus.

We are talking about the national security of Russia and the nuclear deterrence of the "hegemon", so profanity, hype and freaking on this topic are simply unacceptable.

What kind of aircraft carriers does Russia need

Having figured out why we actually need aircraft carriers, let's say in a nutshell what kind of aircraft carriers we need. Ideal is the reincarnation of the Ulyanovsk heavy nuclear-powered aircraft-carrying missile cruiser. Those for the Navy of the USSR should have been built 4 pieces, but did not have time.

Alas, the modern Russian Federation simply cannot sustain a project of this magnitude. It will be very long and expensive, a lot of money will be pumped out of the budget by the subsequent maintenance of four nuclear supercarriers. Why so many? They will have to be distributed two by two to the Northern and Pacific fleets, and the ships will periodically need repairs and modernization. While one is under maintenance, the second must be ready to serve so that the enemy does not take advantage of the absence of an aircraft carrier in the ranks.

A reasonable alternative to nuclear giants with a displacement in the region of 80 tons is the construction of light aircraft carriers with a displacement in the region of 000 - 40 tons with a conventional power plant. Yes, in a direct collision with the Nimitz or Ford in the battle for the Pacific atolls, he has no chance, but such a task is not for the Russian aircraft carrier. 000 carrier-based fighters, 50 helicopters and 000 reconnaissance and strike UAVs will make it possible to cover the SSBN combat deployment area and provide an escort for a military convoy, and even strikes along the coast can be carried out, supporting, if necessary, amphibious assault.

It will be several times cheaper to build and then maintain a light aircraft carrier with such a displacement than the Ulyanovsk analogue, and much faster. For example, at the Zaliv plant, where two project 23900 UDCs with a comparable displacement of 40 tons are already being built, immediately after they were launched. As a prototype, the light multi-purpose aircraft carrier project from the Krylov State Research Center or the Varan project from the Nevsky Design Bureau, about which we they said previously. The design features of the ship are a debatable issue, but its dimension is fundamental: in the region of 40 - 000 tons of displacement, which makes it not fantastic, but quite real.

What aircraft do Russian aircraft carriers need

An air wing for promising aircraft carriers is our separate headache. Light carrier-based MiG-29K fighters have long been outdated, and heavy Su-33s have been discontinued. An ideal option would be the “weakened” fifth-generation Su-57 fighter, however, the aircraft is produced in small test batches, since the Izdeliye 30 engine has not been brought to perfection, there is no deck version, and to launch such a heavy aircraft, you need a catapult and a fairly long deck . In other words, the Su-57 is an option for the Ulyanovsk-type nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80 tons, that is, a matter of a very distant future, when Russia will claim the role of a global power with a really powerful ocean fleet.

In the meantime, let's be more realistic, and our fully working version is the budget version of the Su-57, the light multi-role fighter of the fifth generation of the Su-75. With common sense, it becomes clear that the Checkmate should go the way of the American F-35 fighter, which has three versions: the F-35A for the US Air Force, the F-35C as a carrier-based for the US Navy, and the F-35B SKVVP for the US Marine Corps.

What will the transformation of the Su-75 into a multi-mode aircraft give Russia?

At first, in the version with horizontal takeoff and landing, Checkmate can serve both basic and naval carrier-based aviation. The Su-75 could well replace the aged MiG-29K fighters on the Admiral Kuznetsov and promising Russian light aircraft carriers, and also be exported, for example, to the Indian Navy.

Secondly, in the version with a short takeoff and vertical landing, the Su-75 could be based on project 23900 universal landing ships, as well as on other ships of this class, which, hopefully, will still be built. The presence of the SKVVP will turn the UDC into light aircraft carriers, which can be used as a means of air support for amphibious assault forces or for escorting a military convoy.

Thirdly, in the version with purely vertical takeoff and landing, the Su-75, if necessary, can be placed on the deck of large container ships, turning them into ersatz aircraft carriers. The corresponding ARAPAHO program was developed after the Second World War, taking into account its experience, by the Anglo-Saxons, who had to seriously fight the Germans and Japanese at sea. The developments came in handy during the Falklands War, when Great Britain had to send all its combat-ready aircraft and fleet to the other side of the world. VTOL Harriers were then based on large container ships and contributed to the defeat of Argentina.

If the Su-75s are able to take off not only in a shortened, but also in a purely vertical pattern, they can, if necessary, be placed on mobilized civilian ships, strengthening their deck with a heat-resistant coating. Of course, in naval battles against AUGs, there will not be so much benefit from VTOL aircraft, except perhaps to protect the mast, but, for example, they will fulfill the task of air support for amphibious assaults. It will be possible to send several dry cargo carriers carrying up to 20 VTOL fighters on each to reinforce the Russian KUG (AUG) to a remote theater of operations.

Thus, the transformation of the Su-75 Checkmate fighter into a multi-mode SKVVP will allow Russia to acquire a relatively low-cost, but very effective carrier fleet. Our country may not become the "mistress of the seas and oceans" because of this, but it will turn into a really strong player that even the US Navy will have to truly reckon with.

Sergey Marzhetsky

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

gunnerminer

-3

27 January 2022 12: 49

In other words, without adequate cover, the naval component of our "nuclear triad" is practically defenseless, its use turns into "Russian roulette", luck or no luck. And if you're not lucky?

If there is no confidence in guaranteed success, then it is better not to play roulette. You can lose the tape measure, the table, and even the room itself.

With common sense, it becomes clear that the Checkmate should go the way of the American F-35 fighter, which has three versions: the F-35A for the US Air Force, the F-35C as a carrier-based for the US Navy, and the F-35B SKVVP for the US Marine Corps.

It remains to be seen how to proceed successfully along this path. In what ways. In the context of ongoing sanctions. And even in the face of reduced investment. The creators of the F-35, F-35C, F-35B have a different production base, with the ability to attract foreign firms and design organizations, foreign components.

Thirdly, in the version with purely vertical takeoff and landing, the Su-75, if necessary, can be placed on the deck of large container ships, turning them into ersatz aircraft carriers.

Find out where to get such large container ships? They are not even in the tiny Russian merchant fleet. There are small feeder ships in FESCO, in the Kamchatka Shipping Company, involved in the northern delivery. Quite shabby, over 20 years old.

The LA Harrier units were based not only on the container ship, but also on Chilean territory. Their strikes were an unpleasant surprise for the Argentines.

Our country may not become the "mistress of the seas and oceans" because of this, but it will turn into a really strong player that even the US Navy will have to truly reckon with.

Without a doubt! I would like to know for how long, and at what price. The rent-based resource economy is not entirely oriented towards such a development of the fleet. As can be seen from the current everyday life of the USC, UEC, OPK.
TermNachTer

0

27 January 2022 13: 31

The main thing is not to repeat the mattress scam with F - 35
1. Marzhecki
  
  -2
  
  27 January 2022 14: 04
  
  There, the essence of the scam is to dilute a bunch of foreign vassal partners for cash.
  We don’t have those, we will have to do everything on our own, because we are not threatened with this.
  1. sH, arK
    
    -1
    
    29 January 2022 10: 16
    
    We don't need to breed this rigmarole at all. An aircraft carrier, if needed, is only for projecting power onto the "wild" coast! This is his only task. Cover SSBNs - he can't! From what?! In the northern seas, even in summer, ice begins immediately behind the waterways, no fleet has ever driven them there! And how an aircraft carrier will help in the fight against multi-purpose nuclear submarines - I'll never know! Yes, helicopters are perfectly based on BODs, frigates, etc. Magnetometer - only on large planes, on our IL-38, they won’t sit on any aircraft carrier, and they don’t even need it! All of our SSBNs go either under the ice or in Okhotsk!
    1. Half a hundred second
      
      +2
      
      29 January 2022 10: 36
      
      Quote: sH, arK
      And how an aircraft carrier will help in the fight against multi-purpose nuclear submarines - I'll never know! Yes, helicopters are perfectly based on BODs, frigates, etc.
      
      In Soviet times, two anti-submarine helicopter carriers (anti-submarine cruisers) were built. Their task (main) was to search for and destroy enemy SSBNs. Because the BODs (even a few pieces in the detachment) could not cope with this. A larger group of helicopters was required for round-the-clock work and coverage of a larger area. One group is observing, the second is preparing to change it, the third is resting, the quadruple is being serviced. And in a circle. This is a couple of dozen helicopters. How many BODs do you need to accommodate that many helicopters? There are such storage facilities with jet fuel on the BOD. to ensure the intensive operation of helicopters? Are there repair shops, a sufficient supply of BC? The seaworthiness of the BOD and the larger ship is incomparable. That is why the Soviet admirals acquired "Moscow" and "Leningrad".
      
      And then VTOL aircraft were added to the helicopters, and we got TAVKRs.
      
      If you do not understand something, this does not mean that other people who are smarter and more experienced than you do not understand it. You can't call Soviet admirals stupid?
      
      The Americans on aircraft carriers had special PLO aircraft - jet Vikings and turboprop Trakers.
      
      They wrote them off with the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the "red threat", as they considered. At least the Soviet / Russian SSBNs left the oceans. For PLO, aircraft carriers are much better suited than BODs, due to the above serious reasons.
      
      I do not need to answer, what I wrote is not for your ears. You still won't understand anything
      1. sH, arK
        
        -1
        
        29 January 2022 12: 07
        
        It is clear that it is not for me to listen to all sorts of nonsense, or rather read!
        There is a concept - coverage. You first look at the map and calculate the distance! And a couple of helicopters on a frigate / BOD, of which you can make a dozen for the cost of an aircraft carrier and provide real coverage. Many military men from the USSR had the "do the same as the adversary" disease. But then, the USSR spent a lot of money on all sorts of nonsense, no one sucked resources from it, and against this background, to support the "fraternal" peoples of Africa, an aircraft carrier might have been needed. Prior to this, the USSR built Project 1123 anti-submarine cruisers with a displacement 3-5 times less than that of a full-fledged aircraft carrier. Later he built TAVKRs, because of the Montreux Convention, which prohibited the passage of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles by aircraft carriers.
        
        Now, on Kuza, in my opinion, there is no longer anti-ship missiles ... Then everyone understood everything, but the USSR was the force that no one climbed into the bottle! In other words, the USSR had the idea of using aircraft carriers not at all to cover the SSBNs!
        
        PLO, first of all, in the 60-70-80s was needed to cover from American SSBNs! For this, there were BODs and PLO cruisers of project 1123. But then again, they were then needed due to the limited capabilities of the submarine fleet! American SSBNs with Polaris, when the rocket flew 2-3 thousand km, were forced to go almost to the coast for launch! When Tridents appeared, and then Trident-2, the concept of these ships lost its relevance!
        
        This does not mean, of course, that strong ASWs are not needed, but it means that it has become extremely difficult to provide it with the help of heavy and expensive ships due to a sharp increase in missile attack areas.
        
        It is impossible to embrace the immensity! Therefore, we switched to protecting the water area of the exit to the database from the bases by the forces of the surface fleet, and the protection of the database is already carried out by multi-purpose boats! But already these boats are becoming an important striking force, the example of the conversion / conversion of Ohio SSBNs is proof of this!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      29 January 2022 11: 20
      
      Cover SSBNs - he can't! From what?! In the northern seas, even in summer, ice begins immediately behind the waterways, no fleet has ever driven them there!
      
      The US is building its own icebreaker fleet. The ice is gradually melting.
      SSBNs are also based in the Pacific. Will the ice help there too?
      1. sH, arK
        
        +1
        
        29 January 2022 12: 33
        
        Even we don't drive our own fleet with an icebreaker ;)) The speed of the icebreaker is 2-4 knots, Quiet running of the boat - up to 10 knots, ultra-quiet - up to 5. The boat will hear the icebreaker for 100 miles. Further explain ?!
        
        As for the melting of the pack ice, I would separate the wheat from the chaff! It is still very unclear whether there is warming or not, but even if there is, and even in the Russian Arctic, as if it is the strongest! But the fact that the pack ice will not be 3, but 2 meters thick in 30 years will somehow change something ?! Well, maybe in 50 years it will become a meter, it will cease to be a pack, so what ?! Then it will be necessary to look what and how to change! What kind of noise will nuclear submarines have, what means of detecting these noises.
        
        Here comes a new type of actually nuclear submarine - Poseidon. Yes, as long as it is a heavy-duty torpedo for retaliation, i.e. when the war has already taken place, when everything is already in ruins, this is such a blow that will put an end to the opponent for the next hundreds of years! But if a powerful warhead is replaced there, for example, with a CD? Well, there is enough space for 4-6 missiles! And the same robotic launch? Or, for example, what prevents to make, as the remote control is improved, from it an ultra-small nuclear submarine with a crew of 2-5 people ?! Yes, and having the ability to go at a speed of 100 knots and at a depth of more than 1000 meters?! No NK can catch up with her for sure!
        She will even leave the helicopter GAS! It will only have to be tormented for the second acoustic inflection! Thinking for the future is a must! But there the air trough will definitely no longer be relevant!
  2. TermNachTer
    
    0
    
    6 February 2022 22: 20
    
    Designers and production workers are also living people, they also want to eat deliciously and drink sweetly.
zloybond

+4

27 January 2022 13: 32

first raise it into the sky, and then we will zigging. So much noise because of the project. As it flies, we'll talk.
Sergey Latyshev

+3

27 January 2022 13: 32

If the Su-75s are able to take off not only in a shortened, but also in a purely vertical pattern, ..

it has already gone fortune-telling on mushrooms. Most likely this will not happen.

So far, similar past ideas have ended in nothing, for illogicality.
Marzhecki

-5

27 January 2022 14: 03

Quote: Sergey Latyshev
So far, similar past ideas have ended in nothing, for illogicality.

What exactly are the past ideas?
In my opinion, there is some logic in the article.
1. Sergey Latyshev
  
  +3
  
  27 January 2022 18: 02
  
  Past: An unsinkable aircraft carrier from the shallows near the south, a flying radar from a "partisan" with electric motors, etc.
  
  There is logic. But stuffing into the 75th and sea, and short, and vertical takeoff, and something else is not good.
  
  Even the intentions have not yet been voiced ...
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -2
    
    28 January 2022 08: 13
    
    Past: An unsinkable aircraft carrier from the shallows near the south, a flying radar from a "partisan" with electric motors, etc.
    
    I don't work for the General Staff. These are just my thoughts out loud.
    
    There is logic. But stuffing into the 75th and sea, and short, and vertical takeoff, and something else is not good.
    
    Normally.
    
    Even the intentions have not yet been voiced ...
    
    This is in vain.
    1. Sergey Latyshev
      
      0
      
      28 January 2022 09: 15
      
      In words, everything is easy. At least create a space fighter. (which was prophesied to the 6th generation earlier, but could not)
      
      But in fact, the f35 also has several times fewer naval fighters than conventional ones.
      those. such are more complicated and more expensive than conventional ones, which can be seen from the previous types of weapons.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        -2
        
        28 January 2022 10: 49
        
        In words, everything is easy. At least create a space fighter. (which was prophesied to the 6th generation earlier, but could not)
        
        Words are my job, which I do well. It would be nice if others did the same.
        
        But in fact, the f35 also has several times fewer naval fighters than conventional ones.
        
        This is obvious, even the USA cannot have more than 12 AUGs.
        
        those. such are more complicated and more expensive than conventional ones, which can be seen from the previous types of weapons.
        
        because the operating conditions on deck are more difficult.
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -1
        
        28 January 2022 14: 16
        
        Here, closer to reality, they came to a consensus
Marzhecki

-4

27 January 2022 14: 03

Quote: zloybond
first raise it into the sky, and then we will zigging.

It's not worth the hassle at all. Not our way, not our method.
Sasha Anatolyevich

-1

27 January 2022 14: 23

I am sure that the vertical takeoff version of the SU-75 is not correct. A hippo must be a hippo and a crocodile must be a crocodile. If you cross them - FU-35 will work.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  27 January 2022 14: 39
  
  If you cross them - FU-35 will work.
  
  Is this plane really as bad as it is portrayed?
  The F-35В turns any UDC and even a large barge into a light aircraft carrier with little preparation of its deck.
  1. sgrabik
    
    +3
    
    27 January 2022 15: 59
    
    Even if it is bad, more than 500 aircraft have already stamped them and continue to mass-produce them, with our current snail's pace of building new aircraft, we simply will never catch up with them.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      27 January 2022 17: 06
      
      We do not need to catch up with them in terms of the number of aircraft and aircraft carriers, which is simply impossible.
      We need to have enough of them to carry out real combat missions.
  2. Sasha Anatolyevich
    
    -1
    
    27 January 2022 23: 50
    
    Well, this song is definitely not about the F-35. Except in extremely emergency cases. But with the performance characteristics of such a modification, the situation is by no means brilliant.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      28 January 2022 08: 15
      
      So who do they fight? For amers, they are designed for the Marine Corps to be based on 11 UDC. For air warfare at sea, other aircraft are needed, and they have them.
      Pretty reasonable division, actually.
    2. Half a hundred second
      
      -3
      
      28 January 2022 10: 33
      
      Quote: Sasha Anatolyevich
      But with the performance characteristics of such a modification, the situation is by no means brilliant.
      
      the F-35B has very decent performance for a "vertical". Or remind you of the Harriers and the Yak-38?
      1. Marzhecki
        
        -1
        
        28 January 2022 10: 50
        
        Absolutely agree. An excellent aircraft for its tasks.
        
        Half a hundred second
        
        -1
        
        28 January 2022 11: 34
        
        The plane owes its reputation to two reasons.
        1. These are the developers of the device themselves. I frankly don't understand them. they leak all the information by plane in open access. On the one hand, this is a huge plus - there has never been such an open project in the history of aviation. Unprecedentedly open. But it also has a huge downside.
        2. Media. It is they who convey information to most of the inhabitants. Vasya Pupkin or Petya Dudkin will not go looking for a serious monograph on the F-35, where everything is sensibly painted, without frills and embellishments, he goes on the Internet and starts reading ... And we all have media engaged, more-less. And it’s more interesting for them to select such materials for the rating that “will give the public a “with a bang.” And what could be better than dunking an adversary! let's choose the best ones, all that is worse, and we'll write it, and how we'll write it! So our layman learns about the plane only the most negative, and even savory flavored with the fables of the authors themselves.
        
        This is how an opinion is formed. Goebbels' propaganda principles - a lie repeated a thousand times is perceived as truth. And after all, any person can be turned into a monster with the help of rumors and the media. If you write that he is a maniac and a murderer, then even the most holy person will be considered a monster and a maniac. And those few who know him personally and have known him for many years, who stand up for his good name, will be stigmatized as "an accomplice of a fascist" and stoned.
        Mankind is not so far gone from the time when witches were burned at the stake.
        
        Therefore, I frankly do not understand the Americans. They couldn't help but anticipate the situation. And still went for it. They would be silent to themselves (as all other aircraft manufacturers are silent) about the shortcomings (which are in bulk for any equipment) - and everything would not be so bad.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        -1
        
        28 January 2022 11: 46
        
        All right, say it
S WITH

0

27 January 2022 15: 01
SSBNs of the Russian Federation are on duty in the North, no aircraft carriers are needed there, it is possible to build airfields along the entire northern coast (air defense has already been deployed) and base "long-range" su35, su57, etc. MIG31 with Dagger seem to have already been placed on Novaya Zemlya.

The monitor lizard is needed specifically against the AUG, because only heavy aircraft carriers of anti-ship missiles such as su35 (30), 57 (radius 1,7-2 thousand km) can increase the radius of destruction of anti-ship missiles Onyx-bramos (nuclear flies up to 800 km) and Zircon (1 thousand km), Varan, as a conditionally missile air cruiser, is capable of destroying the AUG at a distance of up to 2,7 thousand km (1,7 +1 \u2.7d XNUMX thousand km).
su75 (radius 1,2-1,4 thousand km) a light fighter can also be based on Varan for attacks in the near and middle zone with Kh-59mk2 cruise missiles (range 300-500 km) and for air cover.

a vertical ship su75 can, if necessary, take off from a semi-trailer of a truck (you can change position at least every day), like a devil from a snuffbox)) and destroy 5 pieces of f35 with five medium missiles), only because of this mobility and stealth, verticals are very necessary on on the ground, the enemy will not be able to conditionally detect vertical lines in the "sheds", and will easily substitute his attacking aircraft to strike at it from the rear
1. Half a hundred second
  
  0
  
  27 January 2022 16: 41
  
  Quote: S S
  SSBNs of the Russian Federation are on duty in the North
  
  Where are the Pacific SSBNs on duty? You have not forgotten, we still have the Pacific Fleet.
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -4
    
    27 January 2022 16: 57
    
    In the same place as the Gadzhievskys. They began to prohibit access to the main event for the crews of the SSBN 667 BDRM of the project, and then the SSBN 955A of the project.
2. gunnerminer
  
  -4
  
  27 January 2022 16: 55
  
  SSBNs have been performing the main event at the pier since September. According to the directive of the Ministry of Defense. Due to the complete disappearance of an adequate number of forces and means of providing anti-aircraft defense, air defense, and air defense.
Marzhecki

-1

27 January 2022 15: 24

Quote: S S
SSBNs of the Russian Federation are on duty in the North, no aircraft carriers are needed there, it is possible to build airfields along the entire northern coast (air defense has already been deployed) and base "long-range" su35, su57, etc. MIG31 with Dagger seem to have already been placed on Novaya Zemlya.

Not only there.
And in the North they are guarded by American MAPL hunters.
Half a hundred second

0

27 January 2022 16: 38

The developments came in handy during the Falklands War, when Great Britain had to send all its combat-ready aircraft and fleet to the other side of the world. VTOL Harriers were then based on large container ships and contributed to the defeat of Argentina.

"Harriers" did not work from container ships. The same SS Atlantic Conveyor and RFA Argus were only air transport - ships for the delivery of aircraft and helicopters, and they made sorties by flying to aircraft carriers. The container ships had nothing to ensure the combat operation of the aircraft.
VTOL aircraft will not be able to operate from helipads. And it's not just about installing a heat-resistant coating. Therefore, the idea of "having your own aircraft" for each ship does not make sense.

to launch such a heavy aircraft, you need a catapult and a fairly long deck. In other words, the Su-57 is an option for the Ulyanovsk-class nuclear aircraft carrier.

Sushki and MiGs take off from the springboard. There is no problem at all, especially since the 57th will have more thrust-to-weight ratio

the working version is the budget version of the Su-57, the fifth-generation light multirole fighter Su-75.

we will not touch on how much this version of the 57th is and how much it is budget. The car is single-engine, we don’t like those. And the navy won’t take one for themselves at all - unless it’s a VTOL aircraft (you can’t get anywhere from one engine for now)
1. gunnerminer
  
  -2
  
  27 January 2022 16: 54
  
  For flights from an aircraft carrier, the design of the Su-57 and Su-75 will have to be strengthened. The egg is on the star, the chicken is not even in the nest, but in the market in a cage. Flying "Harriers" from container ships is a common meme.
  1. Half a hundred second
    
    -1
    
    27 January 2022 19: 52
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    For flights from an aircraft carrier, the design of the Su-57 and Su-75 will have to be strengthened
    
    the stump is clear that land and deck vehicles are different. Not only a reinforced glider (and often a larger wing area and more advanced mechanization), landing gear, the presence of a hook and a folding wing, but also navigation equipment and an anti-corrosion coating. Least.
    Although the Americans (and not only) operate their "Hornets" from land airfields, and do not remake the naval vehicle. On the contrary, some attributes - like a landing hook - are put on land vehicles, F-16 and F-15, for operation in conjunction with "expeditionary finishers" on short runways.
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -4
      
      27 January 2022 20: 33
      
      The crews undergo additional training for flights over the water surface, and the use of ammunition. After all, people are the main thing in aviation. And something is wrong with aviation educational institutions.
      The Americans do not do the main thing - they do not constantly pull their Navy and Air Force with ill-conceived reforms and landslide organizational events. They do not drastically reduce the number of pre-conscripts who are unfit for health.
2. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  27 January 2022 17: 11
  
  "Harriers" did not work from container ships. The same SS Atlantic Conveyor and RFA Argus were only air transport - ships for the delivery of aircraft and helicopters, and they made sorties by flying to aircraft carriers. The container ships had nothing to ensure the combat operation of the aircraft.
  VTOL aircraft will not be able to operate from helipads. And it's not just about installing a heat-resistant coating. Therefore, the idea of "having your own aircraft" for each ship does not make sense.
  
  So we can use container ships as transports for delivery to any part of the world. There, VTOL aircraft will be able to operate virtually without an airfield. In addition to aircraft, container ships will be able to deliver fuel, ammunition, etc.
  
  Sushki and MiGs take off from the springboard. There is no problem at all, especially since the 57th will have more thrust-to-weight ratio
  
  From which specific ship? With what combat load? Then the Su-57s will not fall into the water if the arresters, as on Kuza, are torn?
  
  The car is single-engine, we don’t like those. And the naval ones won’t take one for themselves at all - unless it’s a VTOL aircraft (you can’t get anywhere from one engine for now)
  
  The poorest customers are the most demanding and picky
  1. Half a hundred second
    
    -1
    
    27 January 2022 19: 44
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    So we can use container ships as transports for delivery to any part of the world. There, VTOL aircraft will be able to operate virtually without an airfield. In addition to aircraft, container ships will be able to deliver fuel, ammunition, etc.
    
    Can. But somewhere where we brought them, there should be an air base, with all the attributes and equipment. Airplanes will not fly in an open field, or rather, they will not be able to work.
    It is also possible to make an aircraft carrier out of a container ship or a tanker, but this will require the ship to be shaken up properly. Set up a deck, hangars, cellars, fuel storage facilities, organize crew quarters, install radio equipment for flight support, refueling, fire extinguishing systems, preparing the aircraft for departure, etc. You will get a training aircraft carrier, on which you can learn replenishment and maintain the skills of combatant pilots.
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    From which specific ship? With what combat load? Then the Su-57s will not fall into the water if the arresters, as on Kuza, are torn?
    
    In a stealth configuration - with a full one. At Kuznetsovo, the 1st and 2nd starting positions have a takeoff run of 90 meters (by the way, the same as the catapult stroke on American ABs) - and this is enough to take off a MiG-29 with a normal load or a Su-33 with incomplete refueling. Enough for the Su-57.
    And if the cable breaks (not immediately, but already during the run), and the plane no longer has enough energy to take off again, it will still gurgle into the water, even if there are catapults on it, even though there are none and there is a springboard. American "Hornets" dive from the deck just as accurately as our Su-33 dived. Their cables are also torn, it happens - this is not only our misfortune.
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    The car is single-engine, we don’t like those. And the naval ones won’t take one for themselves at all - unless it’s a VTOL aircraft (you can’t get anywhere from one engine for now)
    
    The poorest customers are the most demanding and picky
    
    when flying over the sea, two motors are preferable based on safety requirements. Therefore, the navy (both ours and the Americans) prefer exclusively twin-engine vehicles (the F-35 is again an exception, because there is a unified version of VTOL aircraft)
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -4
      
      27 January 2022 20: 37
      
      For the last unsuccessful combat service of the TAVKR, in 2016, they did not prepare the required number of arresters. And in general, despite the efforts of the entire Navy, they did not prepare the ship, crew and air group for the main event. It was scheduled for 6 months, but ended much earlier. KSF could not detach a single multi-purpose nuclear submarine for PLO.
    2. gunnerminer
      
      -3
      
      27 January 2022 21: 18
      
      They didn’t start designing EW, PLO, AWACS and U aircraft for the Russian aircraft carrier. And without them, he is blind and weak.
steelmaker

+3

27 January 2022 16: 46

I like how you are trying to drive into the heads of some that Russia needs. Looking at how Putin rules the country, now any "cook with a taxi driver" will tell you what you need to do in an elementary way so as not to buy potatoes in Israel. Build storage facilities to save the harvest, Putin does not have enough education, and you want aircraft carriers for him to build! In order for us to have storage facilities and aircraft carriers, it is necessary for some kind of state farm chairman to rule the country and not mediocrity with a purchased education !!
Time will pass. And people will be ashamed that they supported Putin. As of now, no one admits that they voted for EBN.
1. Moray Boreas
  
  -1
  
  28 January 2022 08: 56
  
  Something doesn't add up... such power, such progress, the flight of thought and science! Possession of the boundless riches of our Motherland! "Excellent education"! And where throughout the USSR in 1988 was the normal food for the working class? Where are the achievements of Civilization in the homes of the population of the country? Where is the powerful ideology and system that allows us to preserve and increase the heritage of our glorious ancestors? Where in the ravines are our decapitated ill-wishers? Instead - the degradation of the CPSU and the white flag over the House of Soviets ... what's wrong?
Michael1950

-7

27 January 2022 20: 31
...Unfortunately, few topics are so defamatory in the media and the blogosphere as an aircraft carrier. It is difficult to understand why this question causes such unmotivated aggression in some of our compatriots and almost a gag reflex to another model of a promising Russian aircraft carrier.

- Probably due to the severe failures of the "Syrian" campaign

If the Su-75s are able to take off not only in a shortened, but also in a purely vertical pattern, they can, if necessary, be placed on mobilized civilian ships, strengthening their deck with a heat-resistant coating.

“But first you need to invent a gravitsapa.
Denis radish

0

28 January 2022 01: 47

stop stealing and have enough money for everything
1. Energetik42
  
  0
  
  28 January 2022 11: 49
  
  So what's the problem? Stop!
Moray Boreas

0

28 January 2022 08: 43

Russian aircraft carriers must be underwater. Yes Yes! That's right - underwater!
USA IS CRUSHING. ®️2014
Bystander

-1

8 February 2022 16: 36

Thus, the transformation of the Su-75 Checkmate fighter into a multi-mode SKVVP will allow Russia to acquire a relatively low-cost, but very effective carrier fleet.

The cart is ahead of the horse.
And the Su-75 itself is still only a mock-up.
lance is gone

0

9 February 2022 16: 02

component, not component. Today, Apples prefer to walk alone. there is less noise and the depth allows you to get away from anyone you want. so the air group is the place where the enemy ships are concentrated, which allows you to do away with everyone at once. therefore, the pro-Israeli author do not talk nonsense
Kedrovich

0

15 February 2022 16: 25

the sea-based air defense system is rather weak and simply will not withstand a massive air strike by carrier-based aircraft fighters of the American AUG

Funny wrote. Brad of course. Such a massive raid can only happen if 3-4 augs immediately attack from one point, and we clap our ears at this time. Their wing deployment is too slow. Especially given the weather. During this time, according to the AUG, you can have time to work out the anti-ship missiles more than once. And the standard stock of missiles will be enough for all the planes that managed to take off.
qwazimodo

-1

16 February 2022 22: 17

in the version with short takeoff and vertical landing Su-75

We have already gone through this. No, thanks.

The Su-75 could be based on Project 23900 amphibious assault ships, as well as on other ships of this class, which, hopefully, will be built.

This, too, please don't. UDC is a means of delivery and fire support for the landing. With all its advantages, it is able to operate effectively only with the dominance of its aviation in the air, otherwise the whole thing will end in a lot of blood.
His air group is a kind of high-precision mobile artillery, the ultima ratio of the landing commander. Suppress the firing point, open the pillbox, arrange an attack on the barmaley - yes, no problem. But to gain air supremacy on your own is definitely not. For this, neither the number nor the composition of the air group is enough for him. This requires a full-fledged aircraft carrier.
Andrei Maksimenko

0

22 February 2022 17: 41

For an aircraft carrier fleet, it is not a fighter that is required, but an aircraft carrier. In the meantime, under the terms of the budget rule, Russia is not able to pull its own money into Russia. There can be no talk of any aircraft carrier.
How are you American partners, already got their American propaganda.