Mediterenian is not an ocean. It is conected to the Atlantic via Narrow Gibraltar strait...Militarov wrote:
I am well aware what they are building, we all are.
Buyan-Ms are really, really not suited for Atlantic ocean, and Med itself can be classified as "ocean-going" in almost every single characteristic, despite we call it a sea. South-Chinese sea is also "sea" which is basically...ocean.
it is in fact ideal for Buyan M and Project 22160 patrols.....small and stealthy Buyan is hard to detect, still with Kalibr missile system it posses more land attack firepower then most NATO destroyers....
You are talking about su-33UB which made first flight 1999. Su-34 frst flown 1990 and from beginning it was designed as fighter bomber to replace Su-24. They never planed to use it on Aircraft carrier simply because it is too heavy....Militarov wrote:
Su-34 actually was born from platform that was supposed to be flown from an aircraft carrier . I am actually quite sure by adding a hook you could use it from the carrier even without any further modifications.
That is also projecting power. Not much countries can do that? right?Militarov wrote:
Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs.
Regarding France intervention in Mali, they deployed few helicopters and made several airstrikes with few Rafaele and that is it. It is not even close to Russian operation in syria. Russia deployed more than 50 airplanes in Syria of different kind, from Su-24, Su-34, Su-25, Su-30, Su-35.....as well as attack helicopters Mi-28, Mi-35 and Ka-52. They created 2+ permanent bases there, Tartus and Khmeimim plus few other bases which they used and using when they need it. They deployed S-400 and S-300 missile defense system, Iskander ballistic missiles and Onyx supersonic cruise anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles there. Mate, that is real power projection.Militarov wrote:
Projection of power is when you can deploy major taskforce, LHDs, carriers, auxilary fleet with fuel, ammunition, armored units...on division scale. Which Russia atm cant do. Russian contingent in Syria is more or less similar to what France deployed to Mali 2 years back.
Well although Russian navy don't have LHD like Mistral, they still have 20 Large landing ships like Ropucha class. For example Mistral can take 40 Leclerc Tank + 450 troops while Ropucha can take 10 tanks+ 350 troops . For sure Mistral is larger but France has only 3, so that means maximum 120 tanks( even French army has only about 200 ative Leclerc tank anyway).
While with 20 Ropuchas theoretically russia can deploy 200 tanks. Not to mention smaler landing crafts like Zubr, Serna, Dygon and etc.
They miss helicopter decks for Ka-52K, but still they can "replace it" with Tu-22M3 and strategic aviation which France doesn't have.
Again you are spinning information. I was not talking about 12 Strategic SSBN submarines. I was talking about SSGN(Oscar and Yasen), SSN(Akula, Sierra, Victor) and SSK submarines which Russia has approximately around 40. That is their main naval weapons.Militarov wrote:
Russian submarines are part of nuclear triade, the only thing they can hold on and claim they have major naval force. That is the only part of the navy where they tried investing some money even in 90s in hopes to preserve at least title of "major power" though those hard times.
YOU FORGOT mayor thing that Russia posses probably the best airborne troops and they can deploy divisions of special forces very quickly, which is far more better then doing that with LHD.