again, their situation was different then.
Their situation was different then, but even when they did end up building aircraft carriers, the Kiev was based at Murmansk in the northern fleet and went to the med several times... the only place it could be repaired was the black sea but it was never based there.... it would go there for repairs and would leave once those repairs were completed.
The Minsk was based in the pacific fleet... and the third Kiev class ship Novorossiysk served in the Pacific Fleet too... and the forth ship, the Gorshkov, was also based in the Northern Fleet.
The Admiral Kuznetsov is based in the Northern Fleet now too.
So far all their carriers have been made in the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine but all their carriers have been based in the Northern or Pacific Fleet bases.
What has changed to make them do something different now?
who knows, if Crimea wasn't lost, it could stayed there, at least for longer than it did, instead.
Once the carriers they complete were operational, they all left the Black Sea for the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet.
adding more expences, wear& tear on it & its aircraft, not to mention the crew;
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.
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.
The northern sea route renders the Black Sea a useless backwater... it will get ships the northern fleet and pacific fleet don't need.
all it needs r a longer pier, more barracks, & perhaps fuel storage & housing for dependents. Sevastopol & Novorossiysk r not the only naval bases there .
Of course... all they need is a longer pier.... right.
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.
they could make more room for all of them across other bases;
Splitting a carrier and all its support ships across different oceans is stupid and unnecessary... they will all fit in the Northern Fleet and they will all fit in the Pacific Fleet... they wont fit in the Caspian Fleet or the Black Sea Fleet or the Baltic Fleet but that is OK because they will never be based there.
to me, all the reasons I stated r good enough.
They have never based any aircraft carriers in the Black Sea... even though they were all built there... what does that tell you?
I can think the same way the Russians think on naval matters to justify steps that others won't approve or understand.
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.
In their reality, they must do things differently than any1 else, while adopting certain things that others do.
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... which is hilarious because it is part of what is breaking the US... America can't afford all those carrier groups... maybe half are operational...
To me, Russia isn't an enigma like it was/is to Churchill & other Western leaders.
I would say it clearly is if you think they want to base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea.
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.
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.
that's not how they think. More often than not, they play it by the ear.
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...
not only the local forces, but all forces & personnel that can go there to train.
Local forces will have to go to the Northern Fleet to train then.
they could be converted to SSGNs &/ UU/AV carriers.
They would remain expensive to operate and really only useful in a full scale war... ie WWIII.
That is OK for strategic only weapons but for other weapons it is a luxury Russia can't afford.
most of the time, the Americans shoot 1st & ask ?s later; they won't pay any1 they can just shoot;
I know... Americans are too stupid to use their brains and use their money efficiently, the result is a never ending war that will mentally damage a percentage of American youth... not money well spent really.
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.
The Afghans kicked the British out about 5 times already and this will be number six, plus the Soviets and now the Americans and Europeans... they have time...
just wait, their turn will come!
Why wait? Why hit other people and other companies... why not attack the head of the snake and get your way right now... except that it is all bullshit... if that money exists it will be oligarchs Putin doesn't like because Putin didn't want olicgarchs to take their money out of Russia, so taking that money will please the hell out of Putin because it will stop other Oligarchs from doing the same and keeping their money invested in the west where it does not help Russia.
The last time Britain threatened to clamp down on their Russian billionaires Putin offered to have the FSB supply them with all the financial information they wanted because money in Britain means nothing to Russia and Russians... including Putin.
They didn't of course.
[qutoe]I joined NATO as soon as I arrived to Italy & NY in 1988; my home is the whole world, & I could care less about that forsaken place[/quote]
So why am I bothering to discuss this with you... you don't care what they do or who they elect... in fact you probably want them to make bad choices so you feel better about the ones you made.
Russia needs to be the alfa fe/male if she is to stay great, & not only in size.
Bullshit. She just needs to be more trouble than she is worth to bother with... and Putin is moving to that position more and more these days.
The more the west pushes the more he cuts ties and writes them off...
soon the tactical nukes will be used while the MAD is the last resort.
Ah yes, the western belief of a gradual escalation... what a terrible surprise they are in for...
the US does & will use its forces to fight for them.
Then it had better be prepared to lose.
time will tell!
Time has told.
they r upgrading those in storage & will have enough to deploy. if not, Su-30/34/35s could substitute them.
They are upgrading the ones they want to use, they are not boosting production for overseas basing of any types except Backfires it seems in Syria... most likely to allow much heavy bomb loads to be used against the terrorists.
it's about helping to defend them & their trade there.
With increasing trade they can buy their own weapons.
- they rn't building them yet!
They upgraded two Kirovs and will likely upgrade the three Slavas and the Kuznetsov has been upgraded and soon to go back into service to test the upgrades.
I'm talking about sailing NP icebrakers & floating airfields South as a substitute for CVNs, if need be.
Why waste a NP icebreaker where there is no ice?
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.
Working the NSR would be rather more useful to Russia than anything it could achieve by towing a barge.
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.
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.
A Russian corvette can defeat an entire CBG.....get off those drugs alright?
I swear the shit, I read on this forum
8 Onyx missiles would challenge any western CBG and likely sink one or two ships at the very least. In the near future 8 Zircon missiles will turn that into 6-7 sunk ships...
This isn't WW2 and in modern times, a CBG would have more than enough warning of a storm.
Very true, but where it is supposed to be going and what it is supposed to be doing might mean it has to enter that 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.
20% of missiles in the Soviet Navy were nukes and that included the large SAMs. It has long been expected that a conflict between Soviet and western navies would turn nuclear very quickly.
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.
I never said sink an entire carrier group... I said they were dead meat because after a corvette sinks a large number of their ships that carrier group is not going to continue its mission especially when those missiles will target the carrier as the highest priority... once the carrier is sunk it is no longer a carrier group...
A CVN must be hit with just 2-3 HSMs to be disabled/sunk.
I would say a Zircon missile diving at 3km/s that punched down through the deck and actually exploded in the water under the ship would have an excellent chance of sinking that ship.
Especially if it hit the middle and not just one end.
Note that all these ships aren't armored at all, in fact practically nothing is.
Even if they were armoured a Zircon moves at 3km/s which is 1.2km/s faster than the APFSDS round from a T-72 tank... and it weighs more than 7kgs.