I have debated this with you before, the treaty defines a carrier as any ship with the facilities and equipment to support airplanes.
Not strictly true. At the time they wrote the agreement in the late 1800s there were no heavier than air aircraft. I seem to remember (without check... which is always a stupid thing to do) that it was revised in the 1920s when they added the definition of aircraft carriers... which were brand new at the time.
The fact of the matter is that most ships carry aircraft... from the 1920s they had float planes mounted on launch platforms on battleships to act as spotters, these days even very small ships have facilities for helicopters and drones are going to be carried on everything moving forward now, so does a corvette with a helicopter count as an aircraft carrier?
The actual rules state that the definition of an aircraft carrier is a ship whose sole purpose is the launch and recovery of aircraft for the means of war.
The Kiev class ships had anti ship missiles and could operate as an armed warship. The Kuznetsov has anti ship missiles and therefore is not solely an aircraft carrier.... even the new helicopter landing ships they are building can enter the black sea as they please because they are landing ships as well as helicopter carriers.
There is a rule about no ships allowed above 15K tons, but that only applies to ships of navies that do not have ports in the Black Sea... part of the Ukraine BS was about kicking Russia out of Sevastopol and having a HATO port there so they can spend as long as they like there... without a port they are only allowed to remain in the Black Sea for 21 days.
...and it would be a total waste to operate it in the Black Sea.
But that is the real reason it wont be going there... it just is not needed there because land based air power can do everything the Kuznetsov can do and more.
The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to provide air support in places you would otherwise not have it, though in this case a Russian carrier is actually optimised to defend a group of ships rather than support colonial invasions.
The Su-33's are not retired and the airframes seem to be in very good shape. It was introduced into service in 1998. The FA-18E/F's entered service one year later and they are still operational.
Plus the Su-33s have not had anywhere near the use that the US aircraft have... look at how many wars the US has been involved in where they sent carriers... for Russia it was only Syria.
It does not have to operate in the black sea, but to operate in the Mediterranean or in the Persian sea it is easier to have supporting shipyard in the black sea
I can't see Russia having its only carrier trapped in the Med or the Black Sea... their focus has shifted to the rest of the world... it makes more sense to base it in the Northern or Pacific fleet where it can operate in the Atlantic or the Pacific and visit countries to improve ties and sign contracts with.
It is not a warship to take on all of HATO in WWIII, it is an air defence carrier to protect Russian interests in international trade during peace time... it will secure trade worth trillions of dollars for the Russian economy and will be good for the BRICS+ countries too.
By 2030 it will probably have Su-57Ks replacing the Su-33 and the new MiG carrier based light fighter replacing the MiG-29Ks or adding to their numbers... up until now the Russian Navy has been at the back of the queue... but pretty soon Russia is going to be trying to communicate and trade with the rest of the world and they will be doing that through the ocean.
The increased trade and relations with countries in the rest of the world will pay for improvements and probably export sales of Russian ships and subs too.
The conflict in the Ukraine has shown the rest of the world that their stuff actually works and that they know what they are doing and how to use it effectively.
True, but the shipyards in the black sea have much better weather conditions and are 365 days /year ice free.
Very large enclosed shipyards and some icebreakers can fix that.
I would really like to see a new concept based on the yak-44, possibly with new PD-8S turboprops or with propfan engines with the gearbox and propellers of the D-27 engine (Zaporozhye engine, but those parts were made by russian Aerosila) and with the core of the PD-8S
Agree, but they might have some other clever idea up their sleeve too. I have mentioned multiple times that an AWACS does not need to be fast but flying high with big antenna space and long endurance are important factors which I think favour airships for the role.
Thinking outside the box is not a bad thing. Modern composites could make it very light but also very strong structurally, and it could be designed to be largely fire proof, and with fuel cell technology being able to change your buoyancy without dumping ballast or releasing lifting gas would make it rather self sufficient.
You could put a dehumidifier in it to gather fuel and ballast in flight... and solar panels can contribute to onboard power too.
As far as I understand, in the russian base in Syria there is the possibility of minor repair and replenishment for some ships, but I doubt that they could actually service ships larger than a udaloy class, much less an aircraft carrier.
My understanding is that it was very basic, but with the conflict in Syria and a greater Russian presence it has been upgraded, but I doubt it would be suitable for supporting an aircraft carrier on a permanent basis... but I also really wonder what the carrier would actually be doing there in the long term.... protecting Syria from the west? I think it would be rather more valuable operating along major sea lanes of communication and commerce and visiting friendly countries to boost trade and good relations with them.
I know that it will require time to have the black sea shipyard in Nikolaev in a decent state, but it has been completely rebuilt already after the nazi occupation (who destroyed completely the shipyard before abandoning the city) and it can be done again.
As I have said before it might take a few years to decide whether it is neutral Ukrainian territory or if it wants to join the Russian Federation, and of course the west will object... which does not matter a lot but it complicates sales of things produced there to the rest of the world etc etc.
Better to just build grain sales ports to shift grain that will now not be going through european ports any more, an a few shipyards to build civilian ships which they need in large numbers. They even have India building civilian ships for them.
without having to fight for resource and space availability with the building of supertankers i.e. in Zvezda in the far East.
Zvezda is a government yard... there will be no fighting.
Why not make the super tankers in the Black Sea in their nice all year round weather?
Possibly, but Zvezda is now the main shipyard for building supertankers and until now they had no military orders.
To be fair they are a large shipyard that is intended to make large ships, so as the only large ships on order at the moment were the two new helicopter carriers it is no surprise they are focussed on building large commercial ships.
As far as Sevmash, they have the experience with the modification to the carrier for the Indians, but it is also currently the only shipyard which is making nuclear submarines (both SSN / SSGN and SSBN submarines)
Earlier also Amur shipyard in the far East and Krasnoye Sormovo in Nizhny Novgorod built nuclear attack submarines but now they moved to other kind of products:
Do you not see the pattern?
The do this but they both moved to this.
When the plan changes and requirements change they can be used for different jobs... that is the way.
Most of the shipyards in the Ukraine in the black sea are destroyed or damaged or will be if Kiev thinks it has lost... a bit of scortched earth vandalism and then run to the border with the EU.
That is fine... most of what they had is fucked up anyway and scrapping it and building things from scratch makes rather more sense anyway.
There is a long navy tradition in that region and Russia should take advantage of that, but they currently need more civilian ships than military and the faster they get the civilian ships the more money they will make for the Russian economy to fund an upgrade and rebuild for the armed forces including the navy.
Maybe next sets of shipyards and naval bases could be in Alaska, after it returns to be a Russian territory
If Russia did half of the election interference and active social engineering to change other countries in the US that the US does to the rest of the world the Alaskans might rise up like the Americans think the Siberians might rise up and rally against Washington (Moscow).
It is not HATO expansion if they ask to join us right?