Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Vorkova]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I taught that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

Su-35S is life. :3

[Purpelia]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

You would have to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this thread to confirm or deny that. But given that the T-50 is not yet in service I'd wager that a lot of its technologies simply weren't around 2, 3 or 5 years ago and that this is the reason why it's not in service yet. Even if the performance is not better, it's different enough that you might need to look at something older...

[Imperializt Russia]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

I think that sounds beautiful.

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

You would have to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this thread to confirm or deny that. But given that the T-50 is not yet in service I'd wager that a lot of its technologies simply weren't around 2, 3 or 5 years ago and that this is the reason why it's not in service yet. Even if the performance is not better, it's different enough that you might need to look at something older...

Its technologies were broadly around, but the West had simply bettered the Russians in many of them.

[Arthurista]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

I don't think it's time to write off the Flanker yet. After all, the yanks are still investing to update the F-15E and F-18E/F platforms. A "Silent Flanker" Su-35S with RAM coating, conformal weapons bays and AESA radar would be a thoroughly nasty beast to deal with. If Carlo is right it might even give the F-35 a run for its money.

At sea, I'm still more of a fan of the Su-33 than the MiG-29K. The latter is more modern, has better avionics and A2G capabilities, as well as being physically smaller (a boon given how small the Kuznetsov is compared to American carriers), but the former has far better range and payload, factors of considerable importance in a naval environment. Su-33s upgraded with a modern AESA and integrated with strike munitions would be very handy, especially if you decide to operate carriers larger than the Kuznetsov.

[Vorkova]

I don't think it's time to write off the Flanker yet. After all, the yanks are still investing to update the F-15E and F-18E/F platforms. A "Silent Flanker" Su-35S with RAM coating, conformal weapons bays and AESA radar would be a thoroughly nasty beast to deal with. If Carlo is right it might even give the F-35 a run for its money.

I'll switch to the SU-35 then. I didn't actually come across that when I was putting my air force together. Should I lower the number of PAKs if I'm writing off the MiG-35 or keep it as it is?

At sea, I'm still more of a fan of the Su-33 than the MiG-29K. The latter is more modern, has better avionics and A2G capabilities, as well as being physically smaller (a boon given how small the Kuznetsov is compared to American carriers), but the former has far better range and payload, factors of considerable importance in a naval environment. Su-33s upgraded with a modern AESA and integrated with strike munitions would be very handy, especially if you decide to operate carriers larger than the Kuznetsov.

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I don't think it's time to write off the Flanker yet. After all, the yanks are still investing to update the F-15E and F-18E/F platforms. A "Silent Flanker" Su-35S with RAM coating, conformal weapons bays and AESA radar would be a thoroughly nasty beast to deal with. If Carlo is right it might even give the F-35 a run for its money.

I'll switch to the SU-35 then. I didn't actually come across that when I was putting my air force together. Should I lower the number of PAKs if I'm writing off the MiG-35 or keep it as it is?

At sea, I'm still more of a fan of the Su-33 than the MiG-29K. The latter is more modern, has better avionics and A2G capabilities, as well as being physically smaller (a boon given how small the Kuznetsov is compared to American carriers), but the former has far better range and payload, factors of considerable importance in a naval environment. Su-33s upgraded with a modern AESA and integrated with strike munitions would be very handy, especially if you decide to operate carriers larger than the Kuznetsov.

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

I remember reading somewhere that the size difference between the MiG-27K and the Su-33 is much smaller when the wings are folded; the Su-33's wing-fold joint is closer to the fuselage, relatively speaking, so it's only a fraction of a meter wider in terms of carrier hangar storage. Unfortunately, while I was able to find the Su-33's folded-wing span (7.40 m), I can't find the same figure for the MiG-27K, so don't take me seriously just quite yet...

[Vorkova]

I'll switch to the SU-35 then. I didn't actually come across that when I was putting my air force together. Should I lower the number of PAKs if I'm writing off the MiG-35 or keep it as it is?


I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

I remember reading somewhere that the size difference between the MiG-27K and the Su-33 is much smaller when the wings are folded; the Su-33's wing-fold joint is closer to the fuselage, relatively speaking, so it's only a fraction of a meter wider in terms of carrier hangar storage. Unfortunately, while I was able to find the Su-33's folded-wing span (7.40 m), I can't find the same figure for the MiG-27K, so don't take me seriously just quite yet...

A quick google says the folded wingspan of the MiG-29K is around 7.8 m.

[Purpelia]

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

Why not the size of this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... _Ulyanovsk

[The Soodean Imperium]

I remember reading somewhere that the size difference between the MiG-27K and the Su-33 is much smaller when the wings are folded; the Su-33's wing-fold joint is closer to the fuselage, relatively speaking, so it's only a fraction of a meter wider in terms of carrier hangar storage. Unfortunately, while I was able to find the Su-33's folded-wing span (7.40 m), I can't find the same figure for the MiG-27K, so don't take me seriously just quite yet...

A quick google says the folded wingspan of the MiG-29K is around 7.8 m.

Hm. Somehow it must have slipped by me, I scanned Google up to the 5th page and found only base MiG-27 dimensions.

Anyway, the point is that the Su-33 is only .4 meters wider than the MiG-27K when they're being stored on a carrier, despite being much larger when in the air. Of course, folding wings don't help much with length, but from what I've seen carrier aircraft are rarely stored nose-to-tail so that's slightly less important.

Regardless, it's really up to you what plane you choose. I happen to prefer the Su-27 family, partly for its aesthetics and partly for its insane maneuverability, but if you'd rather use the MiG that's fine.

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

Why not the size of this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... _Ulyanovsk

Well, that ends my search for a non-Western Bloc aircraft carrier of adequate size...

[Purpelia]

Well, that ends my search for a non-Western Bloc aircraft carrier of adequate size...

Check the Russian language page for a rather cool image: IMG
In fact, the Russian Wikipedia is full of such images, like this one.

[Vorkova]

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

Why not the size of this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... _Ulyanovsk

I was originally going to go with it, but I thought it was a bit small.

EDIT: Actually, it might not be a bad idea for a carrier. My military budget is similar to the US militaries so I could probably build twelve of them.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why not the size of this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... _Ulyanovsk

I was originally going to go with it, but I thought it was a bit small.

EDIT: Actually, it might not be a bad idea for a carrier. My military budget is similar to the US military's, so I could probably build twelve of them.

A quick google later... lel here's your modern carrier Stuka to go with it.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I was originally going to go with it, but I thought it was a bit small.

EDIT: Actually, it might not be a bad idea for a carrier. My military budget is similar to the US military's, so I could probably build twelve of them.

A quick google later... lel here's your modern carrier Stuka to go with it.

Soviet supercarriers and a ship-based Su-24?

I really should start renovating my naval air force at some point... though renovating the Army has eaten up way more time than I hoped, so I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

[Vorkova]

I was originally going to go with it, but I thought it was a bit small.

EDIT: Actually, it might not be a bad idea for a carrier. My military budget is similar to the US military's, so I could probably build twelve of them.

A quick google later... lel here's your modern carrier Stuka to go with it.

It's not a bad idea, but the SU-33 is almost twice as fast as the basic SU-24.

[The Corparation]

Well, that ends my search for a non-Western Bloc aircraft carrier of adequate size...

Check the Russian language page for a rather cool image: IMG
In fact, the Russian Wikipedia is full of such images, like this one.

That second one is going in my desktop background folder.

[Arthurista]

I don't think it's time to write off the Flanker yet. After all, the yanks are still investing to update the F-15E and F-18E/F platforms. A "Silent Flanker" Su-35S with RAM coating, conformal weapons bays and AESA radar would be a thoroughly nasty beast to deal with. If Carlo is right it might even give the F-35 a run for its money.

I'll switch to the SU-35 then. I didn't actually come across that when I was putting my air force together. Should I lower the number of PAKs if I'm writing off the MiG-35 or keep it as it is?

At sea, I'm still more of a fan of the Su-33 than the MiG-29K. The latter is more modern, has better avionics and A2G capabilities, as well as being physically smaller (a boon given how small the Kuznetsov is compared to American carriers), but the former has far better range and payload, factors of considerable importance in a naval environment. Su-33s upgraded with a modern AESA and integrated with strike munitions would be very handy, especially if you decide to operate carriers larger than the Kuznetsov.

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

I'd guess that your tactical fighter force is likely in a state of transition. Among your heavy fighters, first and second generation Flankers (Su-27 to Su-30MK type) are being gradually phased out in favour of the Su-35, while PAK FAs are starting to enter general service. Likewise the MiG-35 is displacing the MiG-29M in a similar fashion.

With the navy, it all depends on your force mix. Think of the MiG-29K as roughly in the same niche as the Rafale or the F-18E (niche, not capabilities), a light multirole fighter that's very versatile. An upgraded Su-33 would be in the same role as an F-14, a heavy, predominantly air superiority aircraft. You might even want to think about having some Yak-141s for your surviving Kievs, if any.

[Transnapastain]

I was originally going to go with it, but I thought it was a bit small.

EDIT: Actually, it might not be a bad idea for a carrier. My military budget is similar to the US military's, so I could probably build twelve of them.

A quick google later... lel here's your modern carrier Stuka to go with it.

Can you provide something that's not a photobucket link? My Googling has found nothing indicating the Su-24 was navalized...and "Su-24KP" returns nothing. Amazingly, just because it says "Navy" on the tail doesn't mean it flies off a carrier.

This is obviously some kind of alt-history thing considering no carriers from Project OREL were ever built.

Dropping the P from the search yeilded this so you can probably disregard this request for information.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

You would have to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this thread to confirm or deny that. But given that the T-50 is not yet in service I'd wager that a lot of its technologies simply weren't around 2, 3 or 5 years ago and that this is the reason why it's not in service yet. Even if the performance is not better, it's different enough that you might need to look at something older...

I think the main reason the T-50 isn't in service is the country which is developing it. Russia was either bankrupt or barely better off than for the 90's and probably right up until 2001 when the price of oil really started to rise.

[Virana]

So I decided to modernise my airforce a bit to keep up with the hordes of Raptors and F-35s that appear in some RPs. With my nation being more stable than Russia, I thought that developing the T-50/PAK FA around the same time the US developed the Raptor would be reasonable. For my fighter numbers, how does 400 PAK FAs, 1,400 MiG-35s and around 650 MiG MiG-29Ks sound?

You would have to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this thread to confirm or deny that. But given that the T-50 is not yet in service I'd wager that a lot of its technologies simply weren't around 2, 3 or 5 years ago and that this is the reason why it's not in service yet. Even if the performance is not better, it's different enough that you might need to look at something older...

The Sukhoi T-50 doesn't really have much (if any) technology that wasn't present in matured form before the start of its development process. But development naturally takes time—design, mature technology integration, and testing. Russia's lack of previous experience with stealth aircraft caused a real learning curve when it came to the T-50.

[Riysa]

You would have to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this thread to confirm or deny that. But given that the T-50 is not yet in service I'd wager that a lot of its technologies simply weren't around 2, 3 or 5 years ago and that this is the reason why it's not in service yet. Even if the performance is not better, it's different enough that you might need to look at something older...

The Sukhoi T-50 doesn't really have much (if any) technology that wasn't present in matured form before the start of its development process. But development naturally takes time—design, mature technology integration, and testing. Russia's lack of previous experience with stealth aircraft caused a real learning curve when it came to the T-50.

The T-50/PAK FA is based on existing technology, mostly. Really, the only thing unique it brings is the L-band radar, designed to counter LO aircraft and missiles.

@OP That isn't to say its a bad plane - its pretty good, but with the cost, I'd like to know a bit more about your defense budget and whatnot. It takes time and a ton of money to build up a big air force, and stealth aircraft aren't cheap.

[Anikatia]

At sea, I'm still more of a fan of the Su-33 than the MiG-29K. The latter is more modern, has better avionics and A2G capabilities, as well as being physically smaller (a boon given how small the Kuznetsov is compared to American carriers), but the former has far better range and payload, factors of considerable importance in a naval environment. Su-33s upgraded with a modern AESA and integrated with strike munitions would be very handy, especially if you decide to operate carriers larger than the Kuznetsov.

I went with the MiG-29K mainly because that's what Russia is using is at the moment. If you think the SU-33 is better, I'll go with that then. My carriers are around the size of the US Navy's if that helps.

The main reason Russian bought Mig-29K's over Su-33's was that they were more cost effective in the small numbers they needed as they were already in production for the Indian Naval Aviation. Compared with restarting Su-33 production for about 20 aircraft, so If you have a larger budget and procurement then the Su-33 is pretty much the best non-stealth carrier based aircraft around. That's why China copied them for the basis of their J-15 carrier based fighters.


As for the T-50 it is a prototype design similar to the YF-22 or YF-23 so it does quite represent what the final design will be like as they intend to fit different superior and stealthy engines on the later versions.

[Triplebaconation]

Unfortunately they can't compete with proper carrier aircraft, so if you're using US-sized carriers you should use something else.

[Imperializt Russia]

A quick google later... lel here's your modern carrier Stuka to go with it.

Can you provide something that's not a photobucket link? My Googling has found nothing indicating the Su-24 was navalized...and "Su-24KP" returns nothing. Amazingly, just because it says "Navy" on the tail doesn't mean it flies off a carrier.

This is obviously some kind of alt-history thing considering no carriers from Project OREL were ever built.

Dropping the P from the search yeilded this so you can probably disregard this request for information.

Note the folder of Photobucket it was filed under is "what if"

[Oaledonia]

I'm going into PMT parasite fighter soon...