Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Volga–Don canal is not suitable for majority of military ships.

Seriously Militarov ? You pretend to be an expert ? They can move it on the 24th of december with the help of Santa ...

To talk without knowing has these consequences. This message and the previous of Papadragon inside this same quote, put you both in a very ridiculous situation.

How would you both explain the delivery to Vietnam of the Project 11661 ships from the shipyard of Zelenodolsk?    

Tsavo Lion wrote:If it was so easy to backfit EMALs, the Chinese by now would be talking about doing it on the CV-16 & CV-17- both r just 30m longer Adm. K sister ships! Their CV-18 will reportedly have no NP but EMAL. The USN, CN, RN, FN, Brazilian, Australian, Dutch  & Argentinian navies had no NP on their a/c carriers but with with steam CATs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)

Even CVNs need to be periodically resupplied with aviation fuel, ammo., food, spares & toilet paper.

Oddly enough, Brazil was a mentor to China's fledgling carrier program—in 2009, Brazil agreed to train Chinese navy officers on the São Paulo. In 2013, according to the Xinhua state media service, a cadre of Brazilian Navy carrier pilots were training China's People's Liberation Army Navy in carrier flight operations. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a25260/brazil-retiring-only-aircraft-carrier/

Indian CVs can't accommodate Su-33s & after canceling some deals & allowing Americans on a Russian SSN, their relations with Russia could be a lot better, so u can forget about sending pilots to train there.  
Ordinance can be equipped with sm. locating beacons, if the MAD isn't of any help.
Let's compare Yak-141 data with other fighters:
Empty weight:          11,650 kg (25,683 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,500 kg (42,989 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Specifications_(Yak-41) 8.15T fuel & weapons (AAMs & cannon rounds)
AV-8B Harrier II
Empty weight: 13,968 lb (6,340 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,950 lb (10,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
                              Vertical: 20,755 lb (09,415 kg) -5,3T difference, with a lot more kinds of weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#Specifications_(AV-8B_Harrier_II_Plus)

The F-35 is intended to be the United Kingdom's primary strike attack aircraft for the next 3 decades. One of the Royal Navy requirements for the F-35B design was a Shipborne Rolling and Vertical Landing (SRVL) mode to increase maximum landing weight to bring back unused ordnance by using wing lift during landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B
The rolling vertical landing technique is being developed to increase the F-35B's bring back payload when operating from the UK's planned CVF large-deck carriers.
An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift.
For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.
"We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings," says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL "appears to be a viable option", he says.
The F-35B will also replace the USMC's Boeing AV-8Bs, but these normally operate alongside helicopters from assault carriers too small for conventional fighters. "We continue to work with the navy on this," Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique-214672/
The historic 1976-1977 Mediterranean Cruise, the Roosevelt's last incidentally, proved that the Harrier could integrate with a modern Navy Carrier Air Wing seamlessly, even aboard a Midway Class carrier with its tight confines. Regardless of the cruise's massive success, the Navy and the Marines would not sail with a Harrier squadron embarked aboard a conventional carrier again. This may have been due to the Marines' fear that they would lose funding for their dedicated Amphibious Assault Ship helicopter carriers, or it could have been due to the Navy's fear that the success of the Harrier could see their massive, complex and expensive catapult and arresting gear configured carriers becoming less relevant. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-av-8-harriers-deployed-aboard-a-fixed-win-1692022146

The more powerful engine on Yak-141 or its follow on will make it a strike fighter on a par, if not exceeding, the F-35B, using the SRVL.
The Caspian Flotilla & the BSF ships/subs (in the Black/Med. Sea), besides those of the Baltic & the NF deployed in the Med. & Pac. Fleet in the Indian Ocean & Red Sea, can strike with Kalibre CMs anywhere in the ME, Central & S. Asia, with or w/o Turkey's, Egypt's & Iran's permission- no need to have any CVNs in the Med./Red Sea & Indian Ocean: https://www.russiadefence.net/t6686p900-russian-navy-status-news-3

No, the previous steam catapults equipped aircraft carriers had not NPP, but they had steam turbines as powerplants.

Again, it is quite easy: there is practically no way to power a catapult with a gas turbines powerplant, expecially steam catapults.

The chinese are allegedly developing EM catapults, until now with any type of large vessel they have developed, they never stopped to the first ship even when the project was deemed not satisfactory or in need of further upgrades.

Usually they have always built at least two ships of the class before stepping up to the next iteration or to a new project.

It has been true for frigates and destroyers, it could be true with type 055 cruisers, it will be true with their carriers.

First they renewed and upgraded the Liaonin classified as type 001, then revised the project and started building the type 001A. Next step could be to develop an entirely indigenous project with catapults.

If that is the case, i.e. a new type equipped with catapults, I'm very skeptical it will have EM catapults if powered by steam turbines, more likely if having catapults they will be steam powered as well.

For EM catapults, until today NPP is the way to go.

Obviously, even a nuclear powered aircraft carrier needs stores and jet fuel. What it could spare, is requiring some thousand tons of fuel for its own propulsion. It is not the same to transfer let's say one thousand tons jet fuel, some dozen tons of general stores and some tons of spare parts, and to transfer all of the above plus four or five thousand tons of naval fuel.

Just do the math, adding fuel and stores for the escorting ships, and then try an estimate of how many, and how large, replenisher ships would be needed.

About military cooperation between China and Brazil, the Sao Paulo (ex Foch) could not operate nothing else than the smallest and lightest carriier borne aircrafts existing.

So what did the chinese onboard of it, having zero chances to test naval operations with their J-15?

Let's see it: they studied carrier's operations management, maybe?

This fact apart, do the russians need indian cooperation to train their pilots in carrier borne operations? It sounds strange, as allegedly no russian pilots either qualified for Su-33 or Mig-29K did his training with the indians, maybe they used the trial and error approach.

Or maybe they have long ago developed carrier borne operations and related training syllabus.

At last, the development of the rolling landing is just the last proof that vertical landings are still, and maybe they always will be, heavily limitating in terms of bring back capabilities.

And nobody could allow or afford to ditch in the ocean missiles, guided bombs and maybe ECM or Recce pods.

If not because of the costs, because they are always in relatively small numbers in an aircraft carrier.

If it was so easy to backfit EMALs, the Chinese by now would be talking about doing it on the CV-16 & CV-17- both r just 30m longer Adm. K sister ships!

Once you have developed the technology it is easy...

The USN, CN, RN, FN, Brazilian, Australian, Dutch & Argentinian navies had no NP on their a/c carriers but with with steam CATs.

For steam cats you need a source of high pressure high temperature steam... certain propulsion options create that as a byproduct which makes the choice a lot easier.

For EM cats you need lots of electricity... something a NPP is good at generating... especially if it is used on an electric drive ship... so no enormous shaft driven propellers... small manovering pods with electric motors takes up less space and offers better performance options.

Even CVNs need to be periodically resupplied with aviation fuel, ammo., food, spares & toilet paper.

Of course they do, but to move at high speed over long distances then NPP is the best choice... no point in being half way around the world and trying to get somewhere fast but having to slow down to 12knts every 6000kms so your carrier can refuel...

Indian CVs can't accommodate Su-33s & after canceling some deals & allowing Americans on a Russian SSN, their relations with Russia could be a lot better, so u can forget about sending pilots to train there.

Relations with India are much better than with China, so ruling out one rules out them both.

Ordinance can be equipped with sm. locating beacons, if the MAD isn't of any help.

I am sure NATO forces would appreciate help in finding high tech Russian weapons while they are still operational... why do you think that makes any difference?

Plenty of aircraft go down in the sea and are never seen again... including state of the art 777s with all sorts of tracking and beacons and shit.

Just let it go... dumping ordinance in the sea is stupid and expensive and is only something you do when there is no other choice... suggesting a policy of doing every flight is as dumb as suggesting they never fly armed unless there is a guarantee the weapons will be used...

And the Yak-41 is a bigger and heavier aircraft than the Harrier... that is not a good thing in VSTOL.

This may have been due to the Marines' fear that they would lose funding for their dedicated Amphibious Assault Ship helicopter carriers, or it could have been due to the Navy's fear that the success of the Harrier could see their massive, complex and expensive catapult and arresting gear configured carriers becoming less relevant.

The british had Sea Harriers on the Hermes class carriers... a dedicated helicopter carrier if ever there was one and now they have the Queen Elizabeth... is that a helicopter carrier or a fixed wing carrier? And we all know how the british like to spend lavishly on their military...

The more powerful engine on Yak-141 or its follow on will make it a strike fighter on a par, if not exceeding, the F-35B, using the SRVL.

No it wont... it will destroy conventional ship deck structures and melt any weapons under its wings.

The Caspian Flotilla & the BSF ships/subs (in the Black/Med. Sea), besides those of the Baltic & the NF deployed in the Med. & Pac. Fleet in the Indian Ocean & Red Sea, can strike with Kalibre CMs anywhere in the ME, Central & S. Asia, with or w/o Turkey's, Egypt's & Iran's permission- no need to have any CVNs in the Med./Red Sea & Indian Ocean:

They can send an SSN anywhere around the world to attack land or sea targets with missiles but what protects that sub from attack by aircraft and enemy ships after it reveals its position by launching missiles a couple of times?

Right now they have no need for carriers... at all. In 20 years time they might be useful around the world supporting Russian naval forces keeping shipping lanes open for Russian ships. It will take 15-20 years to fully develop a sea going navy.

And nobody could allow or afford to ditch in the ocean missiles, guided bombs and maybe ECM or Recce pods.

If not because of the costs, because they are always in relatively small numbers in an aircraft carrier.

X2

Right now they have no need for carriers... at all. In 20 years time they might be useful around the world supporting Russian naval forces keeping shipping lanes open for Russian ships. It will take 15-20 years to fully develop a sea going navy.

The thing is that if they want it in 20 years they need to start desogning and building it now. Unless if they want a copy of K like the chinese they could make it in 10 years but a brand new design and tge construction will take 15 years easily then the tests will take a long time too.

GarryB wrote:

If it was so easy to backfit EMALs, the Chinese by now would be talking about doing it on the CV-16 & CV-17- both r just 30m longer Adm. K sister ships!

Once you have developed the technology it is easy...
For EM cats you need lots of electricity... something a NPP is good at generating...

Even CVNs need to be periodically resupplied with aviation fuel, ammo., food, spares & toilet paper.

Of course they do, but to move at high speed over long distances then NPP is the best choice...
Relations with India are much better than with China, so ruling out one rules out them both.

Ordinance can be equipped with sm. locating beacons, if the MAD isn't of any help.

I am sure NATO forces would appreciate help in finding high tech Russian weapons while they are still operational... why do you think that makes any difference?
The british had Sea Harriers on the Hermes class carriers... a dedicated helicopter carrier if ever there was one and now they have the Queen Elizabeth... is that a helicopter carrier or a fixed wing carrier?
They can send an SSN anywhere around the world to attack land or sea targets with missiles but what protects that sub from attack by aircraft and enemy ships after it reveals its position by launching missiles a couple of times?
Right now they have no need for carriers... at all [exactly!]. In 20 years time they might be useful around the world supporting Russian naval forces keeping shipping lanes open for Russian ships. It will take 15-20 years to fully develop a sea going navy.

As u suggested about installing NP on Adm. K- too complicated & risky, with >99.99% chance of ruining it- it's easier & cheaper to build a new CV/N with CATs designed as such! China reportedly has now the technology to have EMALS on CVs - a gas turbine can also generate DC electricity to power it w/o any costly NP on board.
The RuN, unlike the USN, has no need to go very long distances & fast often-now or even in 20y.; DDGs, CGs, LHA/Ds, TAKRs, MPA, SSNs & SSGNs can protect SLOCs just as well- it's not like they'll have heavy army divisions overseas that'll need to be supplied in case of an invasion by a hostile bloc, as was the case with NATO vs. the Warsaw pact.
The Russian PGMs r not as expensive as in the West- they just use new computers on aircraft to release them at precisely the right time; in any case losing them is better than to lose planes & their pilots in CATOBAR ops on CVNs that'll cost $Bs to build & operate- even after decades of doing it, the USN isn't immune from CAT related mishaps.
No, the relations with PRC r much better now than with India- she used to play the USA & USSR/RF against each other while staying "non-aligned", but now is so scared of the PRC & its ally Pakistan ganging up on her that perhaps only by getting into bed with the US, Japan & Australia India will have a better chance of saving her skin, before she starts producing her own up-to date weaponry & in sufficient quantities, instead of importing it "lock, stock & barrel"!
"Helo carriers" is now an outdated concept- now they r rather sm./med./large carriers that can carry combinations of STOVLs, helos /tiltrotors of all types, U/CAVs, EWAC, & Marines/SOF, depending on assigned missions/tasks. That's why in Russia they'll be called "UDK- Universal'ny Dessantny Korabl'", or Universal Assault Ship. After 2-4 UDKs, an enlarged & modified version may be built for TAKR/CV roles. The F-35Bs & CV-22s have no greater chance of damaging decks & melting/losing PGMs than any of their future Russian counterparts. These problems r not unsurmountable!

As u suggested about installing NP on Adm. K- too complicated & risky, with >99.99% chance of ruining it- it's easier & cheaper to build a new CV/N with CATs designed as such!

The propulsion system of the K is not that great... replacing it with a NPP would not be easy or cheap but will result in a much better performing vessel and a great testbed for the NPP system which has already been designed for large ships.

They pretty much replaced the entire propulsion system of the Gorshkov when they converted it for India... it is not that big a deal.

BTW you need to have a cat system actually developed before you start putting it on ships... so no cat for K for at least 5 years... but it would be ideal to use the K to install a cat system to actually test before building a new CVN... work out the wrinkles.

China reportedly has now the technology to have EMALS on CVs - a gas turbine can also generate DC electricity to power it w/o any costly NP on board.

Who gives a fuck what China is doing.... it does not matter.

China can reportedly be putting men on the moon as we speak... it makes no difference.

If Russia is going to build a mini carrier or a medium carrier they need to spend 5 trillion dollars and develop NEW GAS TURBINE ENGINES because none of the systems they have in service or on the drawing boards are any where near powerful enough for even a small 20K ton carrier.... it has taken them until the middle of this year to develop GTs for a Frigate for goodness sake... how the hell are they going to upscale them 50 times to power a cruiser or a carrier... and even if they did manage it WTF did they develop those super expensive NPPs for? Are they only going to fit them to civilian ice breakers?

Really?

It would be far easier for Russia to develop EMALs than to develop steam cats... EMALS are rather more capable and flexible.

The RuN, unlike the USN, has no need to go very long distances & fast often-now or even in 20y.; DDGs, CGs, LHA/Ds, TAKRs, MPA, SSNs & SSGNs can protect SLOCs just as well- it's not like they'll have heavy army divisions overseas that'll need to be supplied in case of an invasion by a hostile bloc, as was the case with NATO vs. the Warsaw pact.

Actually the opposite is true.... any US force going to Africa or Europe or Asia have plenty of "friendly" places to stop on the way and get fuel and stores and weapons... any Russian naval force will pretty much need to take everything it needs and not expect to top up on the way... large vessels like cruisers and carriers burn a lot of fossil fuels just getting where they are going without sitting off a coast for a month...

The Russian PGMs r not as expensive as in the West- they just use new computers on aircraft to release them at precisely the right time; in any case losing them is better than to lose planes & their pilots in CATOBAR ops on CVNs that'll cost $Bs to build & operate- even after decades of doing it, the USN isn't immune from CAT related mishaps.

What are you talking about? I have not suggested anything on their CVN except a fighter/interceptor and AWACS types.

No, the relations with PRC r much better now than with India- she used to play the USA & USSR/RF against each other while staying "non-aligned", but now is so scared of the PRC & its ally Pakistan ganging up on her that perhaps only by getting into bed with the US, Japan & Australia India will have a better chance of saving her skin, before she starts producing her own up-to date weaponry & in sufficient quantities, instead of importing it "lock, stock & barrel"!

When the percentage of Russian weapons and equipment dips below 60% of their inventory then we can talk... otherwise Russia has a better relationship with India than with China... though US relations will likely improve Russias relationship with both countries eventually..

"Helo carriers" is now an outdated concept- now they r rather sm./med./large carriers that can carry combinations of STOVLs, helos /tiltrotors of all types, U/CAVs, EWAC, & Marines/SOF, depending on assigned missions/tasks.

Hahahaha... but for cowardly toady Frogs backing out of the deal the Russians would currently have two helicopter carriers in service. They have no fixed wing aircraft that can operate from them so they are helicopter carriers... they have no STOVLs or tiltrotors to speak of.

The F-35Bs & CV-22s have no greater chance of damaging decks & melting/losing PGMs than any of their future Russian counterparts. These problems r not unsurmountable!

Hahahaha... well the biggest obvious problem is that there is no STOVL fixed wing fighter in Russia today... I doubt the US will sell F-35s to them...

There is no value in surmounting these problems. A helicopter carrier needs helicopters to do what it does... wasting deck space with inferior short range fighters makes no sense... by the time they have one or two helicopter carriers in service they will also have the K back in service so why waste space with non existent STOVL aircraft when they will have MiG-29KRs and Su-33s?

And no a STOVL plane does not take up less space on a carrier... the number of aircraft a carrier can take is based on the deck space they take up when folded up.. STOVL aircraft do not fold up smaller than MiG-33KRs or even Su-33s... the latter have a double fold wing and don't take up more space than Fulcrums.

Given the choice of Su-33s and MiG-33KRs or some VTOL aircraft I would take the two in service aircraft every time.

Don't rationalize anything for them- even if it doesn't make sense from Western point of view (which isn't monolithic btw!-see https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/09/special-report-aircraft-carriers-championed-by-trump-are-vuln/21877096/), they'll do things differently as long as they believe it does make sense for them, all things considered.

Like the Ulyanovsk, the new aircraft carrier will carry STOVL aircraft similar in concept to the Yak-41 supersonic vertical takeoff/landing multirole fighter..
In another forte, the carrier will be able to operate in Arctic waters and will have takeoff-facilitating electromagnetic catapults. The Defense Ministry is also considering arming the Shtorm with a battery of hypersonic Zirkon missiles. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201707201055711620-russia-aircraft-carrier/

So it may nave STOVLs & while being a CATOBAR capable. IMO, it may have a combination of GT & NP with EMALS for AEWAC & COD (supply)aircraft. But,

“The state armaments program in Russia consists of two 5-year periods. Planning for the first period is fixed, for the second preliminary and subjects to corrections,” Vasily Kashin, a senior fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, told The National Interest. “So they can safely plan considering a short takeoff plane and laying down a carrier for the second period of the program.”
One reason a new VTOL jet might emerge is to parcel out work to keep certain contractors afloat in an effort to preserve the Russian industrial base. However, Russia does have a genuine potential need for some kind of fixed-wing strike capability for a future large-deck amphibious assault ship.
“The project could well be an effort to give work to a particular bureau,” Kofman said.
“Right now, these pronouncements are back-loaded into the mid-2020s to the point of being ethereal. It may reflect a genuine desire to explore the options for marrying a prospective LPD/LHD design with a VTOL aircraft at some point.”
It is not clear if the new VTOL fighter will literally be a revival of the Yak-41M design—which had aerodynamic performance comparable to the Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum but was slower with a top speed of around Mach 1.4. It’s also possible that the new aircraft could be a clean sheet design. “The intent is unclear, but it would probably use the original design and work that went into developing the Yak-41M,” Kofman said. ..Ultimately, time will tell if Russia will genuinely try to revive the Kiev-class concept and built a new VTOL fighter. The fact is that while such projects might be impressive on paper, the Kremlin does really need such a vessel when scarce modernization dollars—or rubles as the case maybe—are better utilized on other more militarily useful programs.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-getting-ready-build-new-aircraft-carrier-fighter-21591?page=show
China’s armada of ballistic and land attack cruise missiles is only increasing, and many analysts anticipate that the PLA will use these missiles in the opening hours of a conflict to strike airbases and other fixed military installations. The F-35B, at least theoretically, can operate from unimproved areas, thus giving its operators a fighting chance of surviving a first strike. Indeed, the earliest VSTOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) concepts came as an answer to concerns over the threat of nuclear strikes against airbases, not so much from a need to populate the flight decks of light aircraft carriers. It’s also worth wondering whether a competitor to the F-35B will eventually emerge. Few STOVL fighters have made it to the prototype stage, with only the Yak-38, the Harrier, and the F-35B seeing wide service. But if STOVL fighters increasingly meet a defense need, both on land and at sea, then the major aerospace powers may reconsider their development. Indeed, some reports already indicate that Russia has placed a new STOVL fighter in development,..  https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/who-wants-to-operate-carrier-based-f-35bs-in-asia-apparently-japan-and-south-korea/

They can send extra oilers & ammo. ships & go slowly to save on fuel; besides, more bases/ports r becoming avail. now. Tiltrotors, STOVLs  & new/uprgraded helos r being developed: http://defence-blog.com/news/a-new-electrical-tiltrotor-will-be-developed-in-russia-by-2019.html https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2015/09/22/rusia-betting-on-pilotles-tilt-rotors_426883
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-build-prototype-electric-tiltrotor-heavy-lift-helicopter-1644180
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/meet-russias-new-high-speed-helicopter-testbed-1751835251
China developed gunpowder & rockets 1st- if she invents something useful now, any1 could adopt it, & Russia isn't an exception!

The Indo-Russian defence cooperation is not without problems. The Russians are anxiously watching India's diversification efforts. ..The delays in the procurement of spare parts from Russian manufactures and the high prices is a perennially sore issue for Indian consumers.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/deeper-defence-security-cooperation-with-russia-enhances-indias-strategic-choices/articleshow/62200689.cms
Currently the geopolitical realities in the region are changing again. Growing Chinese power and Indian ambitions mean that sooner or later both nations will start confronting each other more. The new setting prescribes the need to revise previous formats of interactions and seek diversification in foreign policy. Given Moscow’s weakness and growing dependence on Beijing, India will need to look for another strong player to maintain its geopolitical ambitions.
Beijing is currently posing the biggest geopolitical threat to India. Both nations have a disputed border, which was highlighted during the recent standoff on the Doklam plateau in territory claimed by both China and Bhutan. China and India likewise compete for influence in the Asia-Pacific region and the Indian Ocean. With China’s current GDP four times larger and its defense spending almost three times bigger than that of India, the broken parity pushes New Delhi to seek for ways to counter its neighbor’s power.
Sino-India relations have been deteriorating for the past decades, while U.S.-India relations have experienced improvement simultaneously. The White House supports New Delhi’s claim for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and its entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group – moves that are opposed by Beijing. The United States likewise is more keen on supporting India’s pursuit for regional leadership in its opposition to China’s ambitions in South Asia and the Indian Ocean and has lots to offer in terms of trade and defense technologies. The latter is particularly appealing in lights of India’s quest to diversify its military suppliers. ..
The Kremlin could still help New Delhi with some of its cutting-edge technologies and international diplomatic support, but India will ultimately keep shifting to the pro-Western orbit. Despite augmenting trade volumes, Russia’s exports to India are barely 2 percent of India’s total imports and in an economic sense, Russia’s struggling economy has little to offer to India in the long-term. The Kremlin’s growing political and economic dependence on Beijing ultimately means that the current momentum of Russia-India relations will be imminently challenged in the upcoming years. For New Delhi, the anticipated shift will necessitate rational support for its independent foreign policy, which aims to diversify political relations while nurturing the goal of keeping “India first.” The latter is proven by India’s participation in a November 2017 working-level meeting of the so-called “Quad” of countries along with Japan, the United States, and Australia to counter China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific. As a growing power, India needs to find its ways to improve its weight in the world order and it’s unlikely that its historically pro-independence foreign policy will make an exception for the Kremlin. https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/the-coming-india-russia-split/
Russia and China’s growing closeness is now a reality that India has to factor in its own foreign policy calculations. ..The Russia-China-India trilateral engagement started off as an attempt to balance American unipolarity. But now, it is wilting under the pressure of China’s rise. Initially, India had expected that the combined might of Delhi and Moscow would balance Beijing. Instead, it is now having to contend with Moscow and Beijing joining forces.
For China and Russia, balancing against the US is their top strategic priority. For New Delhi, managing a rising China is now an urgent concern. As a consequence, the trilateral has limited utility for India, apart from providing a platform to demonstrate that it wants to continue to engage Russia and China.
Rapidly evolving geopolitical realities are generating new global equations. The RIC trilateral of the 1990s is losing its relevance as China and Russia are re-evaluating their foreign policy options. And India, too, is coming to terms with China’s rise and Russia’s growing closeness to China. http://news.statetimes.in/russia-india-china-to-nowhere/
Russia has long been the largest supplier of arms to India, which is the world’s top arms buyer. But Moscow’s move to supply Islamabad came as New Delhi is seeking to modernise its armed forces’ ageing hardware and has recently chosen to buy arms from Israel, France, Britain and the United States.

Indeed, as if the PRC-Pakistan close ties weren't enough, the RF-Pakistan improving relations & defense cooperation doesn't make India's policy makers & military brass any happier either: https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/261673-pakistan-occupies-significant-place-in-russias-foreign-policy-russian-cg
https://nation.com.pk/03-Jan-2018/russia-china-stand-behind-pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Improvement_in_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Military_Sales  
https://pakobserver.net/pakistan-russia-poised-defence-coop/

Indeed, as if the PRC-Pakistan close ties weren't enough, the RF-Pakistan improving relations & defense cooperation doesn't make India's policy makers & military brass any happier either:

I am pretty sure if India said they would no longer have any dealings with the US that the Russians will say they wont have any future dealings with Pakistan... but I doubt either will happen any time soon.

I was meaning to put something up about India-Russia relations. RBTH.com reckoned that India wants a unipolar world and will drift away from Russia towards the US to some extent. That makes no sense to me. Sure Russia is working with CHina, but lets be honest, it doesn't trust China any more than it "trusts" the USA. With India Russia can have a useful REAL ally, with no possibility of disputes. Russia is an excellent ally for India too.

I don't believe Russia working with Pakistan is bad for India. A sensible, non militant Pakistan is good for India AND Russia. It means Central Asia can be less terrorist ridden. It also means that the North South transport corridor from India to Russia and Europe can be built via Pakistan and a stable central Asia. A MASSIVE game changer for India economically.

America won't respect India as it doesn't respect a multipolar world. Russia has to speak to many nations, but it knows its main and enduring military ally outside of the CIS is India. Only when the rail links are built can India and Russia develop a huge trading relationship. ANd that probably requires Pakistan onboard.

Part of Indian culture is to moan and haggle during a deal even if you think the deal is terrific. FInding pretend faults to get more - Indians tell me this!

So I wonder if this is all a load of bullshit drama cooked up by the media. Or whether forces in India ARE considering doing something utterly stupid like defecting to the American camp.

GarryB wrote:I am pretty sure if India said they would no longer have any dealings with the US that the Russians will say they wont have any future dealings with Pakistan... but I doubt either will happen any time soon.

Even if she did say so, Russia needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan- the groups it supports there r better against Isis than the NATO installed &  sponsored regime in Kabul. Otherwise, instability will spread North to the other "Stans" that will be harder to contain. India, OTH, tries to use its influence in Afghanistan as insurance against Pakistan causing problems in Indian held Kashmir. Russia needs the PRC for trade & investments, incl. in E., S. & C. Ukraine (as it builds the New Silk Road that India declined to join), that later may get reunified with it, as well as a check on Japan & US in the W. Pacific & esp. in Korea. Even if India connects to the RF by rail via Pakistan & Iran, it won't be as strong link as PRC has with the RFE & via Mongolia & C. Asia. Also, India & USA r former maritime British colonies that have more in common with each other than with Russia, which, together with China, was part of the contiguous transcontinental Mongol Empire with even more things in common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Mongolica#Personnel_exchanges

In the USN, the CVN-65 was followed by the CV-66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Construction_and_shakedown) & the CV-67 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier#John_F._Kennedy_class)
to save $; from the CVN-68 to -76, all carriers were smaller:    
 Class and type: Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Displacement: 93,284 short tons (84,626 metric tons) Full Load
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)
Beam:
132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m)
Propulsion:
8 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)


Class and type: Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
Displacement: 100,020 tonnes (110,250 short tons)
Length:
Overall: 1,092 feet (332.8 m)
Waterline: 1,040 feet (317.0 m)
Beam:
Overall: 252 ft (76.8 m)
Waterline: 134 ft (40.8 m)
Draft:
Maximum navigational: 37 feet (11.3 m)
Limit: 41 feet (12.5 m)
Propulsion:
2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
Cost: Approximately 8.5 billion USD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz

Neither of the 8 CVs -59, -60, 61,-62,-63,-64,-66, &-67, while serving concurrently with CVNs, were back fitted with NP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier#Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier#John_F._Kennedy_class

Also, catapults can be constructed & tested on land for future classes- no need to install them on Adm. K.  
Russia doesn't need nor can afford to follow in the US footsteps: for the cost of 1 CVN, she can have ~2 TAKRs/CVs, & in less time.
But for Arctic ops, a NP ice strengthened TAKR does make more sense- it will combine 3 ships in 1: an icebreaker, CG, & an a/c carrier. Its BG won't need to be escorted often by icebreakers, except in the high Arctic, & will be able to move to/from the Pac. Ocean on the NSR, avoiding the N.Atlantic, future Nicaragua Canal, Med.Sea, Suez/Africa, the Indian Ocean, Singapore/future Kra canal, the Malacca Strait & South China Sea- saving both time & $.

The construction of a nuclear-powered icebreaker takes eight years, the fuel endurance is about 25 years and the reactor can be refueled. According to the Transport Ministry, Russia needs six new icebreakers in the future [7 active now]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker#Vessels

If they build TAKRNs, 2 may be in the NF, 1-2 in the PF, & 1-3 TAKRs
in the BSF for non-over the ice ops. 4-7 of them will be enough to secure the RF' perimeter, defend her interests, & support her allies. But 1st, more surface warships (small boys) must be ready to form their BGs! Btw, the subs will be protected by them as well when/after CMs r launched even w/o the TAKRs!

Also, catapults can be constructed & tested on land for future classes- no need to install them on Adm. K.

You could also test them under water or in space but if you can't install them on a ship they are not worth anything.

Actually putting them on the K means experience with real world use and a further improvement in the performance potential of the K as it would add AWACS fixed wing capability. In terms of the other aircraft it would make little real difference.

Russia doesn't need nor can afford to follow in the US footsteps: for the cost of 1 CVN, she can have ~2 TAKRs/CVs, & in less time.

Russia can't afford to ignore the fact that air power is a force magnification tool... having aircraft there means being able to inspect potential targets and situations without sending missiles. It is very useful in peace time and even more useful in war.

By the same token, her Su-33s & newer fighters can act as mini-AWACS & jet powered UAVs can be sent for a closer look. Therefore, if "In terms of the other aircraft it would make little real difference", catapults r not essential/feasible on the the Adm. K or the future TAKR/Ns- esp. if they r going to be operating in the Arctic that'll freeze/cover with ice their metal parts up & where STOVLs r safer to fly off the STOBAR flight decks.

There is no relation between STOVL and arctic operations.

While steam catapults seem to have suffered of some hiccups in the past in arctic weather, and it is an open question if that was just a lack of design's requirements or an inherent limitation, it is always true, and it will always be true, that catapults will grant greater flexibility on what aircraft will be able to take off.

Take off is, in a nutshell, a question of what length of airstrip is required to reach the rotation's speed for a given aircraft's type.

That translates to acceleration's properties of the given aircraft, and catapults's role is just to step up acceleration's properties of the given aircraft.

So if you would like to get the maximum persistence from a surveillance aircraft, either manned or unmanned, fuel fraction aside the engine or engines characteristics will dictate how much persistence you will get, and because fuel sparing engines do not provide great accelerations, you will need to somewhat boost acceleration's properties on take off.

There is no known alternatives to catapults when it comes to flexibility in naval aviation, and there is not a single navy in the world that could make without them and aircraft carriers: there is only navies that could not afford either catapults, or even aircraft carriers at all.

Tsavo Lion wrote:By the same token, her Su-33s & newer fighters can act as mini-AWACS & jet powered UAVs can be sent for a closer look. Therefore, if "In terms of the other aircraft it would make little real difference", catapults r not essential/feasible on the the Adm. K or the future TAKR/Ns- esp. if they r going to be operating in the Arctic that'll freeze/cover with ice their metal parts up & where STOVLs r safer to fly off the STOBAR flight decks.  

Why would they send a carrier in the Artic ?? That's just a stupid argument with no sense. Ka-27 are good enough to patrol the artic and cruise missile for destroying potentiel enemy if there is an enemy. Now and for the next 20-30 years there will be only polar bears there ...

Thanks for ur lectures, but nothing u write is unknown to me! The new RN QE class has no CAT, as the Adm.K & Chinese CV-16 & -17- all r a/c carriers in the true sense, even w/o counting smaller Spanish, Italian, Thai, & Japanese classes.  
The 3rd PLAN CV may use EMAL catapults:
http://www.atimes.com/article/third-carrier-may-use-electromagnetic-launch-catapults/

Having said that, I doubt they'll ever consider backfitting a CAT system on CV-16 & -17.
They must patrol the Arctic to show the flag & use it to transit between the oceans to save time & bypass chokepoints &/ potential troublespots -pl. read my prev. post. The US is considering putting CMs on its new icebreakers: http://www.ng.ru/news/605567.html?print=Y
They may not only be AShMs, but also LACMs.

By the same token, her Su-33s & newer fighters can act as mini-AWACS & jet powered UAVs can be sent for a closer look.

Mini AWACS is a stretch... You wont have a flight of 4 Su-33s flying all the time all four flying in a circle a distance apart so each of their radars points in a different direction at the same time to give a good view of the airspace in 360 degrees... flying one larger aircraft that can stay in the air for much longer periods is more efficient and cheaper... and means when under attack more fighters are free to intercept threats rather than maintain an airborne view of threats around the ships.

Jet powered UAVs with new generation radar antennas pointing in all directions embedded into the UAVs skin offer great potential and with an EM cat launch could be carried by helicopter carriers too and perhaps even off the back of a large cruiser...

catapults r not essential/feasible on the the Adm. K or the future TAKR/Ns- esp. if they r going to be operating in the Arctic that'll freeze/cover with ice their metal parts up & where STOVLs r safer to fly off the STOBAR flight decks.

A steam cat has no problems with ice as such because it uses super hot steam and an EM cat should have few problems either as metal parts can be electrically heated so ice does not form...

The main problem of the steam cat is that its pressure is set before launch... if you get that setting wrong and each aircraft with each fuel and each weapon load has a different setting, then either the undercarriage gets ripped off because the setting was too high or the aircraft lands in the water because it didn't get enough assistance to take off in the space available.

With EM cats the force applied to the aircraft can be changed in miliseconds so if it is not accelerating fast enough more energy can be instantly applied to make sure it gets airborne. Conversely if it is detected that too much energy is being applied it can dial down to prevent damage.

I would suspect problems with steam cat launch in icy conditions occurred because the power settings were not calculated for such conditions.

Why would they send a carrier in the Artic ?? That's just a stupid argument with no sense. Ka-27 are good enough to patrol the artic and cruise missile for destroying potentiel enemy if there is an enemy. Now and for the next 20-30 years there will be only polar bears there ...

They are opening airbases in the arctic, so having carriers up there to support their sea route from Asia to Europe would make some sense... but there is no reason why a cat system developed by the Russians could not be made to operate in cold conditions as well as any other conditions likely for them to operate carriers in.

The new RN QE class has no CAT, as the Adm.K & Chinese CV-16 & -17- all r a/c carriers in the true sense, even w/o counting smaller Spanish, Italian, Thai, & Japanese classes.

The Soviet follow on classes to the K were supposed to have catapults before the money dried up.

Because at the end of the catapult steam has to be ejected, it has been speculated that in arctic climate that steam could lead to icing in the last part of the catapult guide, potentially causing failures or unexpected wear and tear.

Still it is just speculations based on experiences datin from the second world war and following years, there is no evidence that such problems are not have been addressed either with chemicals as in aviation industry or with specific heating devices in critical areas.

So basically there are concerns that it might not work properly in a very cold environment but they don't know because it wasn't designed to operate in such an environment and has not been properly tested.

I am pretty sure the Soviets/Russians would develop systems that can be used in their ports all year round.

The Soviets reportedly developed steam cats, but currently I suspect they will be developing EM cats instead.

If they decided to make a new sniper rifle they would not start by designing a musket and then upgrade to a rifled flintlock...

EM cats offer several advantages, including better controllability and safety, but the technology needed for them would also be useful, like low temperature high efficiency magnets and other technologies that can also be used in other areas... like EM assisted guns.

Btw, the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier has
Length: 1,106 ft (337 m) Beam: 256 ft (78 m) (flight deck)
134 ft (41 m) (waterline) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier That's still < than the the Enterprise CVN:
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)
Beam: 257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme) 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)

With good communication, why can't the land based OHRs be used to help any Su-33s on CAP? Their range is adequate for the areas Russian CBGs r likely to operate in. Also, an aerostat high above the ship can extend the radar horizon. It'll de-mask it but even w/o it ships of this size & their a/c will be detected anyway.
In the Arctic, rain, snow, waves, water spray, & fog will turn into ice on the flight deck & may clog the exposed catapults, requiring very high maintenance to prevent/de-ice it- whether it's steam or EM. STOVL fighters can use VTOL method in emergencies even if the whole deck is icy. So, my understanding is that TAKR/Ns there will still need to be STOBAR but may have 1-2 waist CATs for added flexibility.
"The Soviet follow on classes to the K were supposed to have catapults before the money dried up." No, they had the $ but no know-how the - DM Ustinov was against them for this reason. I also forgot that Indian Navy CVs except the Vikrant (R11) were/are all w/o the CAT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(R11)
Interestingly, the Viraat

retained commando transport capability for up to 750 troops and carried four LCVP landing craft in the aft section. In a wartime scenario, the ship could carry up to 26 combat aircraft and was suited for supporting amphibious operations and conducting ASW operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat#Design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya#Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya#Air_Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant-class_aircraft_carrier#Design_and_description

The Indian Navy is also looking at an electromagnetic launch system for its third carrier, similar to the one aboard the Ford class. India’s first two carriers have STOBAR configurations, in which aircraft launch with the assistance of a ski-jump, which limits the maximum weight a plane can lift into the air. Typically this means that fighters must sacrifice weapons, or fuel thus limiting range, or a combination of both.
..regardless of what kind of fighters Vishal uses, the question is whether India really needs a third carrier, which will cost billions of dollars over its lifetime. To be sure, a third and much larger carrier will free up the burden on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant, only one of which is likely to be battle-ready at any given time.
These smaller carriers probably have fewer operational fighters than they do on paper, given that the air wings likely have serviceability rates below 100 percent. Vikramaditya by itself could have significantly less than 24 MiGs capable of flying — and fighting.
Now imagine a scenario in which these carriers go to battle.
Most likely, India would attempt to enforce a blockade of Pakistan and use its carriers to strike land-based targets. But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in the western and northern Arabian Sea. China does not have a similar disadvantage, as the PLAN would likely keep its carriers close and within the “first island chain” including Taiwan, closer to shore where supporting aircraft and ground-based missile launchers can help out.
Thus, Indian carriers would be relatively vulnerable and only one of them will have aircraft capable of launching with standard ordnance and fuel. And that is after Vishal sets sail in the next decade.
To directly threaten Pakistan, the small-deck carriers will have to maneuver nearer to shore — and thereby closer to “anti-access / area denial” weapons which could sink them. And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters, according to 2017 paper by Ben Wan Beng Ho for the Naval War College Review.
“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”
Essentially, this makes Indian carriers’ self-defeating, with the flattops existing primarily to defend themselves from attack rather than taking the fight to their enemy. Carriers are also expensive symbols of national prestige, and it is unlikely the Indian Navy will want to risk losing one, two or all three. Under the circumstances, India’s investment in carriers makes more sense symbolically, and primarily as a way of keeping shipyards busy and shipyard workers employed.
However, this is not to entirely rule out a carrier-centric naval strategy. Ho notes that Indian carriers could be useful when operating far out at sea and in the western Arabian Sea, effectively as escort ships for commercial shipping and to harass Pakistani trade. Nevertheless, this strategy comes with a similar set of problems.
“In any attempt to impose sea control in the northern Arabian Sea and to interdict Pakistani seaborne commerce by enforcing a blockade of major Pakistani maritime nodes, Indian carrier forces would have to devote a portion of their already meager airpower to attacking Pakistani vessels, thereby exacerbating the conundrum alluded to earlier,” Ho added. “What is more, Pakistani ships are likely to operate relatively close to their nation’s coast, to be protected by Islamabad’s considerable access-denial barrier.”
Another possibility is India massing its carriers in the later stages of a war after the Army and Air Force pummel and degrade the Pakistani military.
But this raises the question as to whether India strictly needs carriers at all if it cannot use them during the decisive periods of a conflict — as opposed to, say, less-expensive warships, and more of them, equipped with long-range missiles.
http://warisboring.com/indias-third-aircraft-carrier-is-most-likely-a-waste-of-money/

So, the Indian CBGs must operate with other blue water navies, i.e. the USN, RN, FN, & JSDF to get the most out of them.
TheRuN CBGs will also need the help of PLAN & PN in the Indian Ocean, if they were ever to deploy there, which is doubtful (other than on the good will visits/disaster relief missions)- & that's why the NSR is so important as a shortcut!

OTH radar are of little to no use in an aeronaval scenario, having exactly zero chance to positively classify whatever they pick up.

Putting it simply, they lack any meaningful resolution to discriminate between an oiler, a carrier and a floating barge.

What they rely upon, is on recognizing movement patterns and speed: while it's useful against flying targets, it is of little use against ships, unless you already know what are you tracking.

Aerostats tethered to the ships would be the same to light up a searchlight on top of a ship at night: the enemy would pick up and track EM emissions far before the radar could pick any target.

Nothing could replace a patrol aircraft, the more so at sea. Again, nothing could replace a carrier.

The indian navy does not even need to actually attack Pakistan: only because of indian aircraft carriers, Pakistan has the need to defend in depth over 500 km of coast, even deploying there a good amount of air assets, without getting any other use of those assets, while the indian carriers play a role in the whole indian ocean in terms of diplomacy and deterrent.

Anti-access weapons are of dubious viability even for big powers, speaking of Pakistan it is almost a joke, lacking Pakistan most of the surveillance assets needed to actually track indian fleet.

Reality is, while Pakistan has usually pursued means to balance indian power in an almost asymmetrical way, being well aware of the unbalance in terms of resources, India through its carriers' program has taken Pakistan off balance, because a credible response would be too expensive for Pakistan, but the carriers are for India a tool useful far beyond its confrontation against Pakistan.

By the way, any aircraft carrier in the world has a limited number of days of high tempo operations, then it has to stop operations altogether to give time its air wing to "regenerate", as it is said, or was said, in the US Navy parlance.

CAPs r flown against air threats, not surface 1s- so the OHRs option must still be a good alternative; they can detect while a/c r taking off & from their speed & takeoff run figure the type of aircraft.
Even if India's CVs have any advantage, they r negated by Pakistani & PRC (she can also help with C4ISTAR, not to mention the RF) nukes- India won't dare to strike 1st too deep lest it get vaporized both on land at sea! Rather, the carriers for India are the tools to be used as a diversion &/ to assist her allies, just like the other NATO members Brazilian, Argentinian, Australian 1s were during the Cold War.

Pakistan able to negate something at sea to India is a joke, actually a bad joke.

Pakistan is already committed in a catching up game against India at land and on the air, at sea it has almost no chance to put up a fight.

As all past confrontations have already proved.

At sea real time intelligence is the only useful tool, Pakistan lacks it and neither China or Russia or the USA could provide it to Pakistan.

Real time intelligence means having assets on site and deeply embedded in Pakistan's chain of command, something nobody would agree to permit without having actual leading of the events, which in turn means being actually at war with India.

Unless a direct war between India and some major player, Pakistan will have to rely on its own surveillance assets, and they are not that great.

Even in case of a direct war between India and a big player, it's dubious Pakistan would enter on its will the arena, because the chances of being overwhelmed anyway are quite good.

Pakistan can only confront asymmetrically India, and its armed forces are just a deterrent against any idea on indian side to remove problems by removing Pakistan as a whole.

The idea on Pakistan's side to start willingly an open war against India is almost suicidal, and Pakistan's leadership is well conscious of that fact.

This even avoiding to discuss the funny idea of Russia siding with Pakistan.

Where did I say "Pakistan's side to start willingly an open war against India"?  Again:

But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles...
And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters,..
“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”..“What is more, Pakistani ships are likely to operate relatively close to their nation’s coast, to be protected by Islamabad’s considerable access-denial barrier.”
http://warisboring.com/indias-third-aircraft-carrier-is-most-likely-a-waste-of-money/

In a few years, the PN will have more assets:

Conventional submarines are excellent anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) assets, but the region’s heavily saturated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) environment (e.g. India’s P-8I Neptune and ASW corvette fleets) will pose a threat, even to submarines.
In this context, bringing medium-range (and in time, long-range) anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities at sea – for the sake of providing an air defence umbrella for submarines and other A2/AD assets (e.g. fast attack crafts) is a valid proposition. Perhaps Pakistan could try and emulate the Israeli Sa’ar 6 corvette, which is capable of carrying a medium-range/long-range (MR/LR) surface-to-air missile system. The idea of using the Turkish MILGEM as the basis for a platform, though Pakistan will need to source a MR/LR SAM system (which may not be a factor for at least three to five years). https://quwa.org/2016/07/13/understanding-pakistans-maritime-interests/

The PN now has 5 SSKs, 10 frigates, & 9 missile boats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Pakistan_Navy_ships#Submarine_fleet
The PAF inventory is no joke either, with 412 fighters +50 on order.
"Pakistan have been in talks with China to acquire 30 to 40, JF-31 Stealth fighters also known as Shenyang FC-31 or J-31 for short.":  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force#Current_inventory

They also have a long list of missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missiles_by_country#Pakistan

China has been a steady source of military equipment and has cooperated with Pakistan in setting-up weapons production and modernization facilities.
The two countries are actively involved in several joint projects to enhance each other's military needs, including development and production of the JF-17 Thunder fighter jet, the K-8 Karakorum advanced training aircraft, the Al-Khalid tank, airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) systems, and many other projects. The two countries have held several joint military exercises to enhance cooperation between their armed forces. China is also the largest investor in the Gwadar Deep Sea Port, which is strategically located at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Armed_Forces#China

Being a close ally, Pakistan will get all the assistance it'll need in case of war with India. Russia will also help them directly or through PRC if India becomes a de-facto or de-jure another "major non-NATO ally of the USA". All these can thwart a seaborne attack & be used to counterattack Indian CBGs. If that fails/not enough "to teach a lesson", the Indian densely populated land mass is a good target for both Pakistan & China which have India surrounded on all sides.
The Indians r not stupid & know all of the above- & the fact that they will likely lose their CVs &/ other military/civilian assets after attempting carrier borne airstrikes on Pakistan.
It's a very tough area of the World Ocean to be in, with many navies plying it; TAKR/Ns would be wise to avoid it if Russia's interests don't demand their presence there.

I read "RF" and I understood it as Russian Federation, my fault.

Half of Pakistan Navy is made of ships purchased at least 40 years ago, barely upgraded, and at most useful for peacetimes duties and training.

Like the two A70 SSKs and the former british frigates.

The Pakistan Air Force is a little better equipped, still it has large numbers of Mig-21 derivatives, Mirage III and Mirage 5.

Not exactly the most capable aircrafts nor the best equipped for war at sea, even with the upgrades they got between the 90ies and first years in 2000s.

And the Air Force is by far the best equipped for a confrontation against India, better even than the Army.

Pakistan could field just three quite modern SSK and five not-so-old frigates, that's all.

The frigates themselves, with a partial exception of the single former Oliver Perry class, do not have even a medium range SAM.

So they will have little chances going against an indian task force, and will have zero chances going against an indian task force comprising a carrier.

There is nothing else to say.

That may be true, but my point is that the nukes they have already r powerful deterrents against the Indian CBG being used against land targets in Pakistan, even w/o the PRC getting involved. Indian CVs r too valuable to risk in an air war over Pakistan; once started, it Pakistan'll soon get backed up by China. Remember why the Argentinians kept their CV & other big ships in port in the 1982 Falklands War: the RN SSNs were in the area & could sink them all like the General Belgrano cruiser!

She is the only ship to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri, which was sunk by the Pakistani Submarine PNS Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Following the loss of General Belgrano, the Argentinian fleet returned to its bases and played no major role in the rest of the conflict. British nuclear submarines continued to operate in the sea areas between Argentina and the Falkland Islands, gathering intelligence, providing early warning of air raids and effectively imposing Sea denial. A further effect was that the Argentinian Navy's carrier-borne aircraft had to operate from land bases at the limit of their range, rather than from an aircraft carrier at sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano#Naval_outcome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfPVRTIKobY

In the Indian Ocean, the USN & RN have the luxury of air bases around the Arabian Gulf & Diego Garcia "watching their backs"; the RuN may not have so many bases so well placed.