Well, maybe if you had a reliable source.....
Don't cry too much for 'OFFICIAL' and reliable(second hand source like media is never reliable you can depend only to some extent depending upon the reputation of the source ).
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of news about defense we get today comes through media who quotes unnamed source, serving officers, head of development agency etc. You don't get informations or detail reports or news on step to step development directly from MOD or naval officers. They are too busy to go live every hour to update knowledge of common guy like you and me
So, far one vague source that states Mig-29K's and Naval PAK-FA on the IAC. Which, is hardly an Official Indian or Russian Source. Just a opinion of one reporter. How about one that states Russia and Indian have approved funding for the Naval PAK-FA and its under development. Plus, when the aircraft is expected to fly or when it may enter service???
Why you think there will be no naval PAK-FA? May be you are in state of mind that Russian navy will continue using 4+ gen fighter on their new CATOBAR carriers, even when having 5 gen fighter technology available, even when knowing that Mig-29K will be no comparison to F-35C, just to give respect to 5th gen fighter equipped USN.
Russian navy is surely going for naval PAK-FA for retrofitted Admiral Kuznetsov let alone nuclear powered new CATOBAR carriers. Its just a matter of time when one reporter(reliable as per you) asks about naval PAK-FA and you start seeing news regarding.
Nonetheless, the Naval PAK-FA if ever does materialize. Is to large for the IAC-2 let alone the IAC-1.
May be you should read it again.
The Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Nirmal Verma, indicated in December 2009 that the IAC-II would be sizeably larger than the IAC-I, with a displacement of 50,000 tons. It would also have a more modern launch system, either via steam catapult or, as some as yet unconfirmed rumours have suggested, an EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft System).
PAK-FA's Dimensions (m):
- length 22m
- wingspan 14,2; S=78,8 m2
- height 6,05
SU-33's dimensions:
- length 21.19m
- wingspan 14.7 (7.4*) m
- height 6,05 m
Where is the much difference that make you think that PAK-FA is too big? Oops! almost forgot to tell you the reason behind comparing their dimensions. In beginning Navy's first choice for retrofitted Admiral Gorshokov was Su-33 but they discovered that during take-off from angled take-off strip SU-33's starboard wing come uncomfortably close to the island. For this very and only technical reason Navy agreed to finance the development of Mig-29K for equipping retrofitted Admiral Gorshokov. Now if you go and compare size of IAC-1 and Admiral Gorshokov as well as check location of islands on both you are sure to find out that both carriers are having almost similar fight deck with one difference that island on IAC-1 is situated significantly backwards than Admiral Gorshokov. Now why i can't say that SU-33 can operate from IAC-1? And since there is no significant difference between dimension of SU-33 and PAK-FA, why can't PAK-FA operate from it too?
As of today navy plans for IAC-1 requires only Mig-29K and N-LCA and for IAC-2 calls for new N-MRCA plus N-LCA. Its only when IAC-3 will be available then navy will look to FGFA and in all likelihood IAC-3 will have a mix fleet of naval PAK-FA and N-NGFA or only N-NGFA.
BTW who said to you that naval PAK-FA is been looked upon be for IAC-1?
