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)
132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m)
8 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors
Class and type: Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
Displacement: 100,020 tonnes (110,250 short tons)
Overall: 1,092 feet (332.8 m)
Waterline: 1,040 feet (317.0 m)
Overall: 252 ft (76.8 m)
Waterline: 134 ft (40.8 m)
Maximum navigational: 37 feet (11.3 m)
Limit: 41 feet (12.5 m)
2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
Cost: Approximately 8.5 billion USD
Neither of the 8 CVs -59, -60, 61,-62,-63,-64,-66, &-67, while serving concurrently with CVNs, were back fitted with NP:
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!