the ex-Ukr. N ships now occupy spaces big enough for at least 1/2 of the CBG. There r other locations in the harbor that they can use to anchor/moor ships at.
They would be better off using that space for half a dozen new Frigates and a dozen new Corvettes and a dozen new submarines (SSKs).
this reminds me how the Americans trained for a war in Europe after 1945 but ended up fighting in SE Asian jungles/rice paddies, ME deserts & Afghan mountains instead. The VMF can train in the ice free areas of the Arctic, but that still won't prepare it for the temperate & tropical seas. Bad idea!
But that is the point of an Aircraft Carrier... the ability to train anywhere they like... just because they are based in the Northern Fleet does not mean they have to stay there and can only operate there.
I implied that Russia will have her CVN long after China gets hers, if at all.
So what. That means nothing at all. Russia will get CVNs but she wants a good and useful design, but she wont know what that is until she gets some more experience operating around the world with upgraded Kirovs and the K and other ships too. Then she will have a better idea of what armament and load out of aircraft types she needs for her CVN.
they can sail back & forth between Gibraltar & Tartus to imitate a long cruise w/o going across an ocean to L. America.
Why imitate when they can do the real thing?
future of Russia & the VMF is also random
It only appears random to those not paying attention...
Just like the US and western policy seems random till you realise what they say is why they do things is not the real reason.... resources and money.
Because US presidents just pretend to be in charge, it is big companies that run the US and dictate who gets invaded or attacked or sanctioned.
a heavier C-130 landed & took off on/off CV before
For testing... not operational.
a NP icebreaker can have extra storage for av. fuel that it can then pump to a barge that was converted from a big tanker or built with large fuel tanks; a barge itself can get fuel pumped directly from a tanker.
A conventional tug vessel could use that extra storage to run its own engines... once it gets the barge into position its use of fuel will be minor... in fact clever use of sails could be used to keep it on station without using any fuel at all.
a NP ship doesn't need to be refueled at sea, has large storage spaces & that's a huge plus.
Icebreakers are more use in places with ice that needs breaking than pissing around towing a barge halfway around the planet.
it'll replace its propulsion & el. power supply since it's comparable with CVN propulsion. If armed with even 1/3 of TAVKR/CVN armaments, it'll aid in the defensive/offensive capabilities. They can have 2 of them 1 towing aviation/amhpib. tender barge & the other towing a missile barge.
Or both of them breaking ice earning money helping trade between EU and Asia flourish and grow, while Russian Navy CVNs follow Russian surface ships and provide air cover and support.
AWACS UAVs can fly 100s of miles for days & their helos & S-400 will keep the seawolves away.
Even if they can fly for weeks how does that help the ships when they are threatened... the barge is now four hours away at the edge of the range of the fighters sitting on it... do they even bother sending any knowing they might not have enough fuel to do more than launch a missile and then have to turn around and head back to the barge.
they'll not occupy as much space on deck as CTOLs, so more fighters, helos & UAVs can be carried & operated on a barge.
They wouldn't operate from decks, but sea states would severely limit their capability to operate... a carrier can launch aircraft in fairly rough seas, but amphibious aircraft and ekranoplans cannot.
the TAVKRs r both helo & STOBAR carriers; LHA/Ds & UDKs may have STOVLs while av. barges can have any combination of them.
Russia may even chose to build QE2 style CV/N & UDK hybrid, saving & on separate CVNs & UDKs.
They are currently building 40K ton Ivan Rogov helicopter landing ships... I rather doubt they plan to use them as CVNs too.
Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers
Well actually Aerostats could replace AWACS aircraft rather efficiently, but you would lack the speed and usefulness of combat air patrols of fast jet fighters to fly out and see what that blip on the radar is and then deal with it if necessary.
They already built/ding NP icebreakers that r w/o flight decks & hangars & that can be used to tow av. barges with flight decks & hangars. Together, they can be used as CVNs.
So what you are suggesting is taking the idea of a CVN and splitting into two separate ships... one being with the N propulsion system to be used as an icebreaker, and the other to be a CVN but without the nuclear propulsion system and just be a barge.
Isn't that just taking one thing and making it appear cheaper by splitting it in half... sort of like saying new F-35s are only 70 million each... but you have to also buy the engine if you want it to work and the engine is 40 million dollars... so you end up paying 110 million for a plane you used to sell for 100 million...
You crazy Americans...
25 years to work out why PD is so bitter about the K...