the two lost planes revealed both the pilots' insufficient training in landing on the aerofinisher and the complete lack of readiness of the deck teams to carry out their duties
This is bullshit.
The arrester gear of an aircraft carrier is not just some cable tied to the deck that the aircraft catches and it stops them.
Cables simply don't have that sort of strength at all.
The cables you see on the deck are attached to cables that are rolled up and held by a mechanism like the transmission on a car that feeds out more cable when you pull on it but brakes dramatically harder and harder over time so the first metre or two might be released with a bit of resistence, but the next 4-5 metres of cable are held tighter and tighter and then it lets no more cable go.
The amount of cable released is limited otherwise a heavy aircraft could go over the end of the landing strip into the water.
The rate of tension and that tension increase over the cable released distance is fixed by the mechanism and is intended to rapidly slow an enormous mass over a distance.
If it stopped instantly the it would be like hitting a brick wall and the cable would break every time... the cable is not supposed to break... it is supposed to brake.
The problem was not the cable... they are trained to replace cables in a few minutes, and anyway there are generally 4 cables fitted so if one breaks you can come around and try to land again without changing anything.
The problem was the gearing attached to the cable was not feeding out more cable under tension, so instead of the landing aircraft being pulled to a stop over 30-40m... it was trying to stop it immediately which will always break any cable.
Cables are rated for x number of landings and they do break from time to time in normal use, but when the mechanism for feeding out cable on landing is not working even the best cable will break every time.
The problem in this case is that two aircraft ran out of fuel and had to ditch because they tried to land and broke a cable and then tried again and broke another cable and tried again and broke the third of four cables so they likely replaced those three cables and tried again... by this time neither aircraft had the fuel to reach a land base and they clearly didn't have an aircraft in the air with extra fuel tanks and a buddy refuelling pack attached that could have topped them up and all three flown to land base.
I suspect a bit of arrogance... they wanted to solve the problem themselves and didn't want to send their navy aircraft to an air force airfield, but the fundamental problem was with the arrester gear... not the cable... which is like a problem with your cars transmission... something you don't do on the side of the road... you send it to the work shop and take it to bits and see what is broken or misaligned.
So it was ignorance of what the actual problem was... they didn't realise the actual problem until it was too late to save the two aircraft lost.
Not really a big deal, when the first cable fails you don't get worried because there are four and cables can break normally, but after the third cable broke these two aircraft already needed to land and remain nearby because they likely couldn't reach a land base already. So they would replace the broken cables and try again... breaking half a dozen cables means it is not the cables... it is something that is going to take a lot longer to fix than just replacing a cable... and by then it was probably too late to get a tanker in.
It is not something to get your panties in a bunch over.
Procedurally they should have immediately fuelled up a Flanker with a buddy refuelling pod on board and preferably with four external fuel tanks full of fuel, so that when it was clear it was not a faulty cable and that it was something more fundamental that needed serious work to fix they could have sent all three aircraft off to a land base to land till the problem was sorted out.
You learn that sort of thing from experience.... so that is a good thing... nobody died.
Expensive lesson of course, but war is not cheap no matter how you look at it.
NATO aircraft, carriers of anti-ship missiles, such as the R-3C Orion or Atlantic-2, repeatedly flew up to Kuznetsov.
Not one of them was intercepted, the fighters did not rise to meet them
If the landing mechanism is not working, why would you launch aircraft to intercept such trivial targets?
They carry Harpoons and Exocets... who cares if they launch them...
Russia isn't in need of a new carrier right now, probably not for 10-15 years at least, and the K will function fine when she is ready.
They would have no where to put them if they had 2-3 carriers right now...
However in 10-15 years time they will need to be able to enforce their word around the world, which will mean surface ships and carriers to provide air support for them to operate safely.
Enemy flatops will sink, and Russia having 1-2 of them won't effect the outcome. Russia only needs a minimal carrier force, and doesn't need to divert funds from important programs just to build a large penis pump for navy brass or arm-chair carrier enthusiasts.
I agree they will be pointless in any WWIII type scenario, but saying the Russian Navy with a global reach will not be important in the future is not right in my opinion. Being able to back up words with a military presence is valuable... in ten years time when Trump Junior is in power and he wants to be even better than his dad, so he wants to invade Venezuela of course... having a carrier group going to Venezuela for an "exercise" would be a valuable and useful way of telling the US to pull its fucking head in... without needing to fire a shot. In comparison you could have a dozen Yasen IIIs there and they might not even notice...
In a war zone, a CV is supposed to be on a war footing, with alert fighters set aside ready to launch to intercept & escort out all potential threats. That's the SOP.
Orions and Atlantics can be detected and identified from extreme ranges, which makes them clearly non combatants... why waste aircraft to intercept such things when the enemy is ISIS?
Either of those aircraft does something aggressive then the nearby ships can hit them much faster with SAMs than an interceptor can get airborne and near to...