High speed of SSN allows them to escape more easily.
Using speed to escape is the dumbest thing a submarine captain could possibly do... high speed means noise and revealing your position... it also means pointing your propellers at the enemy... from the enemies perspective... they know where you are and can fire a torpedo at your propeller noise and it will catch you up and sink you and you wont hear it coming because of all the noise you are making and also because your sonar can't hear behind your propeller very well anyway...
Yasens make sense since they can pop up anywhere in the world and send 40 greeting to unsuspecting opponent. Russia has access to most of markets via land or Mediterranean too. only latin America is far. New Zealnd doesnt relly cound as we all know
The problem for Russia is that EU is a hostile market... the Med gives access to north africa, the rest of africa is a long way away, as is central and south america and asia...
Right now the NZ market is still western oriented and so not so lucrative for Russia... there is certainly potential for farm machinery exports, but western brands corner the market at the moment.
If building SSNs is waste of money then building CVNs is flushing money down the toilet and then pouring burning napalm after it
As a global entity with global reach, what exactly would SSNs add for Russia... apart from the ability to kill?
A carrier means surface ships can access most of the world... whether it is for trade or famine relief or humanitarian aide, or just training... when was the last time Russia sent some SSNs to train with an ally?
I am not saying don't have any, but the only time having lots of SSNs would be valuable is in WWIII fighting US and NATO forces, but we have already agreed that this is a pointless waste of money because that ends in a nil all draw anyway... fighter planes and tanks and ships will have little effect on the outcome.
Besides, Russian trade moves by land not by sea
At the moment it does, but as Russia expands its trade partners and trade route options it will need to expand its navy to support that.
Which means there is nothing to protect out there unless you are also of opinion that Russia should fight wars instead of usual Mideast and Latin American deadbeats who are too chickensh*t to do it themselves?
But the Russia is also too chickenshit to fight NATO... but brave brave Serbia took them on... how did that go by the way... was it worth it?
They didn't really give you much choice but at least you had the sense to say when... unlike the US in Afghanistan or Syria...
Papa, it is not a waste, how many instances do you have where a US carrier is sunk not considering WW2?
How often has the US met an equal force in combat where their carriers are actually at risk?
That is like saying no B-2s have ever been shot down so they must be invincible... but they are not... nothing is.
The point however is that a group of ships operating with the proper air cover that an aircraft carrier provides is much safer and much more powerful and more capable than the same group of ships without air cover/power.