Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

again, their situation was different then.

who knows, if Crimea wasn't lost, it could stayed there, at least for longer than it did, instead.

adding more expences, wear& tear on it & its aircraft, not to mention the crew;

What was once a Russian naval backwater is now the centerpiece of Russian power projection into the Mediterranean. Indeed, setting aside the nuclear deterrent mission carried out by the Northern and Pacific Fleets, the Black Sea Fleet has proven to be the most operationally and tactically successful of Russia’s four major fleets.

all it needs r a longer pier, more barracks, & perhaps fuel storage & housing for dependents. Sevastopol & Novorossiysk r not the only naval bases there .

it is, since both US & RF naval bases r so remote from the areas they'll deploy their CB/SGs to.

they could make more room for all of them across other bases;

to me, all the reasons I stated r good enough.

I can think the same way the Russians think on naval matters to justify steps that others won't approve or understand.

In their reality, they must do things differently than any1 else, while adopting certain things that others do.

To me, Russia isn't an enigma like it was/is to Churchill & other Western leaders.

if they decide to transfer more ships to the BSF, all they need to do is move some boats to Asov/Caspian Sea &/ get rid of ex-Ukr.N boats to make more room at the BS bases. More upgrades & expansions could be done later.

that's not how they think. More often than not, they play it by the ear.

not only the local forces, but all forces & personnel that can go there to train.

they could be converted to SSGNs &/ UU/AV carriers.

most of the time, the Americans shoot 1st & ask ?s later; they won't pay any1 they can just shoot;

eing under occupation= losing ur lifestyle & culture. That's why Mexicans kicked out the French & NK kicked out all Chinese advisors & troops after the Korean War.

just wait, their turn will come!

Russia needs to be the alfa fe/male if she is to stay great, & not only in size.

soon the tactical nukes will be used while the MAD is the last resort.

the US does & will use its forces to fight for them.

time will tell!

they r upgrading those in storage & will have enough to deploy. if not, Su-30/34/35s could substitute them.

it's about helping to defend them & their trade there.

- they rn't building them yet!

I'm talking about sailing NP icebrakers & floating airfields South as a substitute for CVNs, if need be.

slower NP icebreaker speed is a trade off for the $Bs saved on CVN construction & operations. After deployments supporting the VMF, it can resume its work on the NSR.

which would defeat the purpose of sending a CBG there in the 1st place, as land based AWACS & fighters can detect & deal with threats to those forward deployed ships/boats.

A Russian corvette can defeat an entire CBG.....get off those drugs alright?

I swear the shit, I read on this forum

This isn't WW2 and in modern times, a CBG would have more than enough warning of a storm.

No, it's common sense, only a fool would believe if you drop a nuke that the other side won't drop them on you if they have them of course. I am not going to debate this if you think otherwise then you just a fool.

Lol, I am no fanboy sure anything that floats can be sunk, however saying a mere corvette could sink an entire CBG and that if Russia used a nuke they wouldn't be returned if nothing but stupidity at its finest.

A CVN must be hit with just 2-3 HSMs to be disabled/sunk.

Note that all these ships aren't armored at all, in fact practically nothing is.

What has changed to make them do something different now?

Once the carriers they complete were operational, they all left the Black Sea for the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet.

It is called experience and it is critical to developing new tactics in cooperation with other Russian Naval ships.

Having it sit in the Black Sea "saving money" will mean it costs millions of dollars to keep it operational but it would be worthless.

The northern sea route renders the Black Sea a useless backwater... it will get ships the northern fleet and pacific fleet don't need.

it is, since both US & RF naval bases r so remote from the areas they'll deploy their CB/SGs to.

What the USN does is not relevant to the Russian Navy.

Splitting a carrier and all its support ships across different oceans is stupid and unnecessary...

They have never based any aircraft carriers in the Black Sea... even though they were all built there...

Yeah because all the decision makers in the Russian Navy all ran away from their country and signed up to fight in an enemies military so of course their thinking is going to be identical to yours.

They do what suits their interests, which the west does not understand and finds different because they are self centred morons who don't understand Russian wants and needs and methods are different from those of the US of A.

Why didn't they build a huge fleet of carriers like we did... oh... it must be because they can't afford it...

I would say it clearly is if you think they want to base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea.

But they are not even moving anything and they could do that for next to nothing... unless there are not plans to expand the number of ships any time soon.

Yeah, no planning... just making shit up as you go... the Russian way... except the reality is the total opposite... rebuilding their military the way they have done took a lot of careful planning and hard work...

Local forces will have to go to the Northern Fleet to train then.

in fact you probably want them to make bad choices so you feel better about the ones you made.

Why waste a NP icebreaker where there is no ice?
Working the NSR would be rather more useful to Russia than anything it could achieve by towing a barge.

AWACS aircraft with fighters on their own is not a strong setup. A carrier operating with Russian ships means AWACS aircraft with fighters operating over one of the strongest IADS networks outside of Russia. Fighters add speed and flexibility to an air defence that can be moved rapidly from hot spot to hot spot.

more BS nations r in/allied with NATO which is also on RF W. borders, & Russia is weaker than USSR was economically & militarily as far as the VMF is concerned.

the RF VMF is a shadow of the Soviet VMF, so don't compare & expect them to base their ships as before.

they can get all needed skills & experience by spending less $ & time since they don't have much of either 1; "time is $".

I bet it'll be spending more time sailing in that sea than in the Barents Sea; if OTH it'll be worthless there, it's won't be any more worthless than in the NF.

the world has changed & Russia is directly engaged in the ME & Africa.

Even the Caspian Flotilla ships were used in CM strikes & 2 IIRC were later transferred to the BSF. 1 CG from the Pac. Fleet was sent to the Med. as the N/BSF didn't have an extra CG. It'll be a long time before it turns to a backwater again, if at all.

if it's relevant to the PLAN which models its CV ops on it, why is the VMF so special, at least in the context of training locations vs. operational deployments?

there is a 1st time for everything,

& the Adm. K isn't a CV, it's TAVKR according to its correct designation.

By ur logic, they don't need to have 6 Project 636.3 SSKs there (as many as in the PacF) too, as there r restrictions on their movements in/out of the BS & Russia can defend her coast & territory well even w/o them.

the CW was over by then

& I knew Russia & US wouldn't be fighting anyway. I still know their mentality & can mentally put myself in their situation better than u who knows very little about them & probably never served in any navy.

true, but u don't really understand them much better, if at all.

it's not a secret that they had a different doctrine tailored to & influenced their geography, history, & yes the economy.

it may come later, time will tell! Quantity, in this case of ships, will turn into quality, according to Marxism. I'm not a Marxist but that philosophy & theory has many correct postulations.

that planning by necessity could include improvising & doing more with less.

there r worse conditions than in the BS for such training to be conducted as often & as safely, & for le$$.

it won't be wasting more $ if it saves $ on CVN they must spend $Bs to build & operate; a barge or floating CTOL airfield can have more & bigger aircraft for the fraction of the cost.

The same if if I want an RV (recreational vehicle), & have an expensive truck that can tow heavy trailers, a lot of $ can be saved by getting a travel trailer instead of a motor home of the same size.

using an armed NP icebreaker & a large barge with the same or bigger # of aircraft could be as effective as a Nimitz/Ford size CVN. It'll be slower but they could send more subs &/ VKS bombers to threaten enemy airfields, ships, & naval bases.

Russia was weaker in the 1990s, but now they are stronger...

Their main fleet bases have not changed and are unlikely to change.

Basing in the Black Sea would mean upgrading the Black Sea fleet bases the way they have been upgrading the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet bases... it would not save any money at all... it would cost more money to upgrade and modify the bases in the Black Sea for aircraft carriers.

They also really don't have time to do it anyway because the upgraded Orlan class cruiser and Kuznetsov carrier will be ready to road test over the next 2-3 years.

The Russians will be trying to promote the NSR to civilian traffic... if they can't or wont send military ships there what sort of message does that send?

They have plenty of land based aircraft in Syria to deal with any issues there... soon to include Backfire bombers, which should be rather impressive.

Those corvettes on the Caspian were used to test them for the role..

& the Adm. K isn't a CV, it's TAVKR according to its correct designation.

It is an aircraft carrier.

Kilo SSKs are ideal for shallow waters and are the best system for operations in the BS and the med... anything else has a big bulls eye on its back and would need protection from other assets there.

the CW was over by then

Cold War over in 1988... I didn't notice...

The fact that you think mentality comes in to it in placing ships is amusing...

exactly what suicidal mentality would they need to want to put their biggest and most powerful aircraft carrier in a shit pond like the Black Sea?

I understand the Kuznetsov is supposed to provide air support for Russian surface ships operating away from Russian air defence coverage so there is no point in having it in the Black Sea at all, and if all the big ships that operate with it are in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet then it makes pretty obvious basic common  sense to base it in one of those ports just like it currently is...

The Kiev class were anti sub carriers the Yak was a pathetic fighter and would be worse than useless against an enemy carrier.

the Kuznetsov and later designs were to allow large cruisers and destroyers to take on if necessary US carriers with fighters as protection.

And that is what they are for now... allowing Russian ships to operate anywhere to improve their protection and attack performance.

But as you say, they can't afford quantity so the ships they do have need to be rather good...

that planning by necessity could include improvising & doing more with less.

Planning but being flexible to change plans when needed is not the same as having no plans because plans can change so just do what you want when you want it and just wing it.

The two training bases are in the BS... training in the Northern Fleet on the actual carrier will be operational training and wont happen in the arctic...they will sail somewhere for the training...

other wise they could just scrap the carrier and save lots of money and practise at the two training centres in the BS and when they want to start spending money build a CVN.

Clearly they want to actually use a real carrier so there is no point using it in the Black Sea because they already have two training centres there for that anyway.

..what happens with this barge thousands of kms away from Russian airspace.... a storm is coming and you have a dozen aircraft on this barge... there is no under deck hangar you can send the planes...
what if there is not enough fuel to fly out all the aircraft.... more importantly you would need to store ordinance on this barge... what are you going to do with that during this storm... what if the barge breaks up and sinks and take billions of dollars of guided missiles and modern aircraft and fuel to the bottom of the sea?..A barge has no hangar and not fuel or armament storage and would need to be gigantic especially if you want to operate larger aircraft.

Building arrester gear into the barge would be an issue too... not to mention landing lights and SAR helicopters etc etc etc.

But your expensive truck in this case you bought for your trucking business to move freight.... that means every time you go on a holiday you stop earning money...

It is an interesting idea... maybe something they could float in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific where support ships could sail up and connect to provide fuel and stores and munitions, but I couldn't see super heavy aircraft operating from such a thing...

Lol So waste billions of dollars on a CVN without propulsion,

Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

it is an aircraft carrier by design it has a flat deck, elevators, hangers, and everything else for aircraft.

..suggested building a CVN without propulsion

The entire deck minus a small portion is flat, its a flat top. .. those are the facts

.you suggested giving it every feature a CVN has,..

Do you really need to generate these acres of text Garry?

Is it worth your time? Surely you can cover just the major points rather than tear every sentence apart creating lots of little sections?

It would save you wasted time as well as I suspect many, like me, just skip over it as we do with Vann

Circles and circles, Garry is trying to discuss with a broken record. Honestly it is ages since I don't follow this discussion anymore, the thread is basically done.

the BSF is becoming the 3rd main fleet, & its bases will be improved & expanded

the upgrades will be only for 1 TAVKR, & it was there during its acceptance trials & training with no problems.

it can change its homeport afterwards, if they decide to do it.

often the naval support comes to the rescue of land forces & is a force multiplier, so they better not put all their eggs in 1 basket.

but if 2 were sent to the Med. & a CG from the Pac. F to join them, it means that the BSF is much needed & is now in the process of expansion.

yes, & since it also carries LR ASh/CMs, it's a hybrid like no other CV. If Turkey raises objections, the Adm K. can transit the straits w/o any fixed wings; they can fly in via Iran, Iraq & Syria once it's in the Med. Sea.

true, but the VMF could save $ by keeping more minisubs there & increasing ASW forces. BSF SSKs will be "going for repairs" to the Baltic & but in fact deploy to the Med: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore

Some Soviets would consider me a traitor for leaving, even to reunify with other family members abroad, but since 1991 the official stance been that it's an individual's choice where to live. I won't sacrifice a single hair from my body for an empire or any state, emigrated not as an anti-USSR enemy & FYI joined the USN in 12/93.

what other fixed wing aircraft carriers do they have & will have in the near future?

they managed to go to L. America & the IO w/o it so far, & may do it again many times in the future.

but not vs. enemy ASW MPA; they were TAVKRs, not only for ASW.

& to strike them with their own AshMs.

& the BS is very well situated to deploy from to the most likely areas they'll operate in, just like the YS for the PLAN CV/Ns.

I bet they have plans for any possibility, we just don't know everything.

they could still save lots of money by not basing it there instead; why can't they build/import a floating doc for it the BSF, if the Zaliv's doc isn't big enough?

training at sea is the final stage for the real world ops & can't be substituted by any NITKA.

they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN.

no it won't; even if so, if it's large, it's not so critical as barricades could be erected to catch a plane in trouble; the same with lights & helipads. Some of its planes & helos could also be amphibian, besides ekranoplans, & Russia has them.

they can be medium, not bigger than An-26/72s & Su-33/34/57s; helos can be as big as Mi-26/38s.

Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

$Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.

They can tell Turkey (its economy depends on Russian trade & tourism) that it needs repairs in Severodvinsk every time it must go to the Med. Sea & beyond, & it won't be often anyway, as it can stay in the BS for training, incl. against NATO ships that r there on permanent bases.

I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway.

A future VMF CVN, if built, would be CATOBAR; a large floating avaiation barge or airfield won't need to be CATOBAR.

Pepsi for vodka
Thirteen years later, in 1972, Kendall entered into an exclusive agreement with the Soviet Union, which gave him the opportunity to enter the communist market. However, there was one problem - the Soviet currency was worth nothing outside the Union. Kendall proposed a barter system. In exchange for the production and sale of the drink in the Soviet Union, Pepsi received exclusive rights to distribute Stolichnaya vodka in the United States.
Pepsi's market grew rapidly and in the late 1980s the company had more than 20 bottling plants throughout the Union.
How about warships
Every year in the USSR, they drank a billion portions of carbonated drink. This was not commensurate with how much vodka was sold in the United States. Therefore, Kendall began looking for other Soviet products to exchange.
The USSR offered warships that were decommissioned. Therefore, in 1989, Kendall signed a new agreement, according to which Pepsi acquired 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer. The company quickly sold them for scrap. For each submarine alone, Pepsi received $ 150,000.
https://innovation.24tv.ua/ru/sovetskij-sojuz-obmenjal-voennye-korabli-novosti-ukrainy-i-mira_n1558582

the BSF is becoming the 3rd main fleet, & its bases will be improved & expanded

No evidence of that, but even if there was that means there are two more important fleets....

the upgrades will be only for 1 TAVKR, & it was there during its acceptance trials & training with no problems.

No mention of that by the media of that being in the budget and it will be back at sea in the next 2-3 years so they better pull finger... except if there is no intention to base in the BS... which is much much more likely.

it can change its homeport afterwards, if they decide to do it.

They might base it here in New Zealand... but unlikely.

but if 2 were sent to the Med. & a CG from the Pac. F to join them, it means that the BSF is much needed & is now in the process of expansion.

Not really. Moving corvettes is not the same as moving a CV.

yes, & since it also carries LR ASh/CMs, it's a hybrid like no other CV. If Turkey raises objections, the Adm K. can transit the straits w/o any fixed wings; they can fly in via Iran, Iraq & Syria once it's in the Med. Sea.

Not moving is quicker and cheaper and simpler. Leave it at the Northern Fleet.

true, but the VMF could save $ by keeping more minisubs there & increasing ASW forces. BSF SSKs will be "going for repairs" to the Baltic & but in fact deploy to the Med: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore

Would make more sense to make Tartus a submarine capable base.

Some Soviets would consider me a traitor for leaving, even to reunify with other family members abroad, but since 1991 the official stance been that it's an individual's choice where to live. I won't sacrifice a single hair from my body for an empire or any state, emigrated not as an anti-USSR enemy & FYI joined the USN in 12/93.

You don't need to justify your actions to me... I am just an invisible guy on the internet... you can do as you please... I don't judge you or anyone else.

what other fixed wing aircraft carriers do they have & will have in the near future?

They wont have any other fixed wing aircraft carriers in the next 8-10 years, so if they want operational experience then they need to use the one they have.

they managed to go to L. America & the IO w/o it so far, & may do it again many times in the future.

Very true, but every time they leave the cover of Russian waters and Russian airspace they become more vulnerable to attack... the solution to that vulnerability is an aircraft carrier, but just taking one with them wont make them safer... they need to work out how to use it properly which means experience... what works and what does not... they wont know till they try. Which ports will let them replenish... don't know till you try. What sort of support will it need in different locations... can't be sure till you go there. What new capabilities does it give a group of Russian ships to have a carrier there... what can they do and what can't they do... all these questions and problems can only be solved by doing it and testing and experimenting.

They might find with a catapult a Yak-44 like aircraft can be used..

& the BS is very well situated to deploy from to the most likely areas they'll operate in, just like the YS for the PLAN CV/Ns.

No it isn't. The Black Sea is not very interesting and the Med is not much more interesting.

they could still save lots of money by not basing it there instead; why can't they build/import a floating doc for it the BSF, if the Zaliv's doc isn't big enough?

Because there is already a perfectly good dock in the Northern Fleet where it has been based most of its operational life.

training at sea is the final stage for the real world ops & can't be substituted by any NITKA.

That is right, which is why land based training facilities will be used but the K has to go to sea for real training too otherwise there is no point in having it.

they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN.

So they could make it as expensive as a CV but not as independent... right...

no it won't; even if so, if it's large, it's not so critical as barricades could be erected to catch a plane in trouble; the same with lights & helipads. Some of its planes & helos could also be amphibian, besides ekranoplans, & Russia has them.

So getting bigger all the time... is it still cheap?

they can be medium, not bigger than An-26/72s & Su-33/34/57s; helos can be as big as Mi-26/38s.

..why would they want Ukrainian transport shit planes of such short range, and what is the purpose of heavy helicopters to a group of ships?

Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

The agreement was that it could leave but could not return except for repairs because the shipyard able to handle it was in the Ukraine. Well now that it is in the Ukraine and wont be repairing or upgrading the K there is no justification or excuse to send it in to the Black Sea, so they wont ever send it there again.

$Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.

No. Those billions were spent so those icebreakers can break paths through ice fields in the far north to the far east. They were never intended or suggested as propulsion systems for barge airfields.

I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway.

A nuke icebreaker can't break ice wide enough for an airfield barge of the size you are suggesting... it is simply not wide enough to clear a path through the ice for the barge. If there is no ice then there is no need for an icebreaker...

A future VMF CVN, if built, would be CATOBAR; a large floating aviation barge or airfield won't need to be CATOBAR.

Having catapults allows it to carry bigger heavier aircraft that it would otherwise be too small to operate... effectively it allows it to be smaller and lighter but with more capable aircraft.

the Ukr.N is gone & its former assets on bases r for the VMF; more ships & subs can be moved to other bases in the BS from Adm K. to come back, & plans may change the next time they look at their finances & decide to save more money.

Novorossiysk is a lot more likely.

even w/o a TAVKR, it's not a backwater location for a fleet.

if nothing else, it will last longer in the BS & will need less maintenance to the hull, radars, & missile launchers.

good; that makes me qualified in ur eyes in my objective & non-biased judgements/opinions on Russia.

but IMO, if history is any indication, it will be more abused than used if it stays in the NF.

I doubt it'll be done with the Adm. K; they don't even know if/when a CVN will be there to sail on.

that plane is only mockup & there r no news of it being built; that's another confirmation that a CVN is still a pipe dream.

naval cruises r not supposed to be interesting, esp. for the VMF; "live the adventure" is what USN recruiters & advertisements used tell to get folks to sign up.

then, it'll give them an excuse to tell Turkey next time it will deploy out of the BS "to get repaired".

in much more difficult & dangerous Barents Sea, if it stays in the NF.

w/o those features, it'll be less expensive!

yes, & it could be built in modular sections & joined together.

anything Ukrainian is like red cloth to a bull to u, isn't it?

I mentioned them just to give size reference; those helos may not be based on it but can be used as CODs.

I meant to use it in the ice free waters, since they have no other NP ship (except the bulk carrier Sevmorput), that can tow big ships & doesn't need to be refueled at sea

they can build a very long aviation barge or airfield with ski rumps that will make CATOBAR CVN concept useless, at a fraction of the cost. Several of such things would coast as much as 1 CVN.
Also, amphibian/ekranoplan AWACS/COD/tanker planes could be developed

GarryB wrote:

the Ukr.N is gone & its former assets on bases r for the VMF; more ships & subs can be moved to other bases in the BS for Adm K. to come back, & plans may change the next time they look at their finances & decide to save more money.

Its operational base and the place it is repaired is in the Northern Fleet.

it's not written in stone & may change.

Moving it to the Black Sea will just cost extra money for no positive results and that is assuming the Turks let it in and they wont need to because there is no indication the Russians want it there...

I got the idea from another Russian & there may be more who think the same way.

Novorossiysk is a lot more likely.

Neither is likely, New Zealand is a zero, and so is any base in the Black Sea for reasons I have already pointed out.

once they see that it's mostly useless in the NF & is only good for training & wasting money, those reasons will become moot.

Lots of problems and costs and no advantages... rebuilding new basing facilities is vastly more expensive than sailing from the Northern Fleet to Tartus in Syria for a test run of the new systems and equipment.

they need to upgrade bases there anyway & it won't take much more $, if at all. Some # of ships will be at sea or in the yards at all times, so there is no need for empty piers.

even w/o a TAVKR, it's not a backwater location for a fleet.

At best it might get an Ivan Gren, but the new 40K helicopter carriers will be Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet based.
It is where they based the Kiev class carriers they had too which essentially turned into helicopter carriers anyway.

but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.

if nothing else, it will last longer in the BS & will need less maintenance to the hull, radars, & missile launchers.

It does not need to last forever... it needs to be useful... and it is not useful in the Black Sea.

as a training ship/LHA, IMO it'll be more useful there; it may never be useful for anything else anywhere, unless India or China buy it, which is unlikely.

good; that makes me qualified in ur eyes in my objective & non-biased judgements/opinions on Russia.

Not at all, you views so far make me think you have a similar mentality to other fellow Ukrainians, or indeed even Poles when it comes to Russia.

she well deserves the reputation she got among them. There's a reason why so many people fled & formed Cossack/Old Believers bands that colonized lands in the South & East over 100s of years.

You say you were in the Navy but you don't recognise the plainly obvious futility of basing an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea...

basing it there is the lesser of the 2 evils, see the above reply.

either you mopped floors in the Navy or you are consciously giving bad advice to an enemy state.

FYI, I handled ship/air cargo before doing aviation maintenance jobs, at sea & ashore after going to schools for that.

but IMO, if history is any indication, it will be more abused than used if it stays in the NF.

..and use the upgraded carrier and upgraded cruisers to work out what works and what doesn't and what changes they might want or need for the new build CVN and new build destroyers and cruisers to follow.

no need to go to W. Atlantic for that; B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas during all 4 seasons could be used instead. In fact, closed seas r more challenging than semi-open/open seas & oceans.

I doubt it'll be done with the Adm. K; they don't even know if/when a CVN will be there to sail on.

You can doubt all you like but new fighters and upgrades to the ship... why would they not sail it around and give it a good test.

if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.

They took it out of dry dock to go to Syria for some testing they would not be able to get any other way... and that conflict is still ongoing... the first trip might be back to Syria to test the upgrades and do it all from the ship this time and they can evaluate what can be changed or improved next time.

I bet they'll need to make many more trips to Syria, esp. since there won't be a light at the end of the tunnel any time soon.

It will remain off the coast of Syria and will not try to enter the Black Sea... just like it did the last time it went to Syria.

if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.

that plane is only mockup & there r no news of it being built; that's another confirmation that a CVN is still a pipe dream.

They have had plans in place for an AWACS platform, the rumour is that they have fitted cats of an unknown type on the K as an upgrade... none of the aircraft that normally operate on the carrier would require cat assistance... suggests either a new AWACS platform maybe, but perhaps more likely the ability to launch unmanned drones of a large size...

if an AWACS plane isn't ready by the time a CVN is, it'll nix ur high regard for their alleged rational planning abilities that u so admire. The Chinese CV-18 is far from completion, but their AWACS is already being tested.

naval cruises r not supposed to be interesting, esp. for the VMF; "live the adventure" is what USN recruiters & advertisements used tell to get folks to sign up.

I don't mean interesting as in entertaining, I mean interesting as in being useful and a learning experience for the Navy.

as mentioned, the B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas r useful, relatively close by & realistic enough to train in.

w/o those features, it'll be less expensive!

And even less useful.

at least as useful as a CVN.

yes, & it could be built in modular sections & joined together.

Russia doesn't want an enormous floating airfield it can park off the coast of a country it wants to bomb...

it can be parked farther away & still provide extra capabilities they won't have otherwise.

the purpose of the Kuznetsov is to provide aircover to a moving group of Russian surface ships... if they sit around a barge that might be moved at perhaps 6 knots at best then they are essentially a sitting duck.

it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.

anything Ukrainian is like red cloth to a bull to u, isn't it?

They fucken burned people to death because those people wanted to speak Russian...

& they were pro-Russian whom the nationalists wanted to purge/delete; tolerance isn't in their vocabulary.

I mentioned them just to give size reference; those helos may not be based on it but can be used as CODs.

Proper support ships should be just fine.

even with them, vertreps r faster.

I meant to use it in the ice free waters, since they have no other NP ship (except the bulk carrier Sevmorput), that can tow big ships & doesn't need to be refueled at sea

Icebreakers are for icebreaking... why do you think refuelling a ship at sea is so impossible?

it'll need to be done more often on a non-NP ship, even if the latter at needs only aviation fuel.

Even if the barge does not need to be refuelled it will be carrying enormous volumes of aviation fuel that will need to be refuelled at sea too...

true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.

they can build a very long aviation barge or airfield with ski rumps that will make CATOBAR CVN concept useless, at a fraction of the cost. Several of such things would coast as much as 1 CVN.
Also, amphibian/ekranoplan AWACS/COD/tanker planes could be developed

It wont be cheaper and wont be able to keep up with the ships it is providing air cover to like a CV or CVN needs to...

some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.

and it certainly wont be cheaper because it does not do the job required.

but, as u say, they'll need to try it to see if it'll work well or not.

Amphibian or Ekranoplan tankers and AWACS are probably good ideas... and I have mentioned repeatedly before an airship would also be good for AWACS... especially with new technology in terms of fuel cells and modern fire proof fabrics and electric motors etc etc and the potential for enormous solar cells and new battery technology.

right, & any of them can make CATOBAR useless for the VMF. TAVKRs, tenders & floating airfields can cater to them.

it's not written in stone & may change.

I got the idea from another Russian & there may be more who think the same way.

once they see that it's mostly useless in the NF & is only good for training & wasting money, those reasons will become moot.

they need to upgrade bases there anyway & it won't take much more $, if at all. Some # of ships will be at sea or in the yards at all times, so there is no need for empty piers.

but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.

as a training ship/LHA, IMO it'll be more useful there; it may never be useful for anything else anywhere, unless India or China buy it, which is unlikely.

she well deserves the reputation she got among them. There's a reason why so many people fled & formed Cossack/Old Believers bands that colonized lands in the South & East over 100s of years.

basing it there is the lesser of the 2 evils, see the above reply.

FYI, I handled ship/air cargo before doing aviation maintenance jobs, at sea & ashore after going to schools for that.

no need to go to W. Atlantic for that; B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas during all 4 seasons could be used instead. In fact, closed seas r more challenging than semi-open/open seas & oceans.

if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.

I bet they'll need to make many more trips to Syria, esp. since there won't be a light at the end of the tunnel any time soon.

if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.

if an AWACS plane isn't ready by the time a CVN is, it'll nix ur high regard for their alleged rational planning abilities that u so admire.

The Chinese CV-18 is far from completion, but their AWACS is already being tested.

as mentioned, the B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas r useful, relatively close by & realistic enough to train in.

it can be parked farther away & still provide extra capabilities they won't have otherwise.

it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.

& they were pro-Russian whom the nationalists wanted to purge/delete; tolerance isn't in their vocabulary.

even with them, vertreps r faster.

it'll need to be done more often on a non-NP ship, even if the latter at needs only aviation fuel.

true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.

some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.

but, as u say, they'll need to try it to see if it'll work well or not.

right, & any of them can make CATOBAR useless for the VMF.

TAVKRs, tenders & floating airfields can cater to them.

They have Corvettes and Frigates and the next step will be production so older ships can be retired, they will be upgrading bases for new ships and expanding for the new destroyers which will be next... not to mention the two helicopter carriers they are building.

but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.

It purpose is to provide air cover for Russian Navy ships when they are operating beyond land based Russian Air power, it would have zero use in the Black Sea which is why it will never be based there... ever.

Yeah, those terrible Russians... killing all those lovely german nazis and pushing them back to western germany...

With climate change by 2035 the Arctic will be navigable all year round... not closed at all.

if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.

Why would that matter? Do you think if China sends its carrier to places that Russia cannot then do the same?

Coordinating trips and organising supplies and fuel at specific places so they can collect resources without having to return to base all the time is part of what they are practising and training at. ..
It is too close and therefore not a useful place to send a ship that is supposed to free the Russian Navy to operate world wide with a good level of protection from air attack.

if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.

Hahahaha... the lottery is random... attempting to predict that is meaningless...

They might assemble one in the middle of the med sea, or maybe off the coast of Antarctica...

it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.

No it couldn't... an airfield big enough to land An-12s would need to be 1km long and would probably need to be 60m plus wide.... there is no way any NP icebreaker is towing that faster than 2-3 knots.

even with them, vertreps r faster.

Bullshit. How many thousand tons of aviation fuel can a COD aircraft deliver per hour... it would take weeks to deliver 1,000 tons and 2-3 tons at a time...

.while the crane on the deck can transfer pallets of food and ammo and equipment...

..the avgas tanker would be needed  three or four times more than the ship towing the barge..

true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.

Too expensive to waste time towing a barge though... there are a lot of cheaper ships that would be better suited.

Either way still wont replace a CV.

some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.

Sail ahead... away from the air cover... why?

Amphibious or Ekranoplan based tankers or AWACS aircraft would have zero value as CAP and air defence for Russian ships in international waters, so no, they could not replace a CV or CVN, but they might still be useful.

Helicopter carriers would still need fighter aircraft cover support... floating airfields like CVs and CVNs.