Russian Naval Aviation: News

Tsavo Lion wrote:https://vz.ru/society/2020/12/21/1076391.html

some readers' comments agree with what I was saying.

GarryB wrote:Yeah, you could argue that having someone who used to fly planes controlling the ship and the carrier group would be good, but you could turn that around and say having pilots run your carriers groups will result in an air focus that might get your ships sunk by submarine attack.... surely the carrier commander should be a submarine captain because a sub captain has a better appreciation of the vulnerability of ships to subs and the vulnerability of ships and subs to aircraft too.

Essentially the doctrine and training for all commanders should be rich and varied and not rely on certain experiences to be had for it to be appreciated.

They don't need to be sub captains to appreciate the threat submarines represent, so needing them to be pilots would not be that critical either.

Also the requirements for airpower in the british and us navies are different from the Russian navy... in the Russian navy the carriers are essentially an extension of their IADS... their air defence network... it has recon functions but most of the time it is airborne early warning and combat air patrol that can go out and inspect suspicious things... in war time if you don't want to risk a manned aircraft sending out a naval S-70 with an optical targeting pod perhaps could be sent out to the midst of a group of air targets.... if they turn out to be Tomahawks and are heading towards the fleet it can start tracking them and perhaps take down some with onboard air to air missiles... if they are a flight of F-35s it can try and get as many as it can and also sound the alarm...

Essentially the targets will be IDed as hostile if they open fire or are missiles in route to the group... if they are 20 hot air balloons in a race in the middle of nowhere... well carry on...

The point is that with aircraft you can go and have a look without risking an entire ship...

With simulator technology what it is today pretty much all Russian commanders should get simulated experience using air power with their surface fleet and fellow air qualified commanders can try and attack them with air power to find weaknesses in their plans and tactics and it can all be reviewed and discussed later on so there is no excuse for commanders to under use their air power...

Russia could also build additional carrier capable su25 for training purposes of new naval aviators, to ease a bit the needs of mig29k and su33.

However the main purpose of an aircraft carrier is to be a moving airfield for the air wing, thus is beneficial that the CO and the XO are experienced naval aviators.

For the same reason the commander of an air force base is an air force pilot.

Of course, that means that some of the naval aviators will have to go into surface command school, and have some experience commanding a ship with large displacement (e.g a Oiler, replenishment ship, or even an amphibious transport ship).

Where is the problem in that? Furthermore while good pilots can can keep their wings until late in their career, active combat pilots are normally younger men.

Not all of the good naval pilots will become Instructor, test pilots or chief of air group.

Some of them will leave the service or will end up in a non flying role within the armed forces.

Anyway, Russia needs to train more naval aviators and keep the one they have in the navy structure and with an active flight status (and current with their takeoff and landings from a carrier).

Maybe they could try to give carrier experience also to the navy pilots of land based fighters (the navy has 22 su30SM). They could include in their training also carrier qualification flights from a mig29k or a su33 and refreshers every 6 months.

Russia could also build additional carrier capable su25 for training purposes of new naval aviators,
to ease a bit the needs of mig29k and su33.

The two simulators in Saki and Yevsk are extremely important, but they cannot fully substitute actual carrier experience.

Navalized cheaper trainer planes on board a real flight deck with rump on a towed barge in the Azov, Caspian or Black Sea could be safer & less risky for pilots to train on before going on deployments.

Nothing beats the real thing- even with 2 NITKAS operational 24/7/364, w/o a 2nd TAKR/CV, a training CV will prepare pilots & deck personnel better for deployments. It'll also shorten the time needed for pilots' real carrier flight ops qualifications.

Thus, it seems that the future air regiments will consist of at least two squadrons, one of which will play the role of air defense and protection of the MiG-31K, and the other will include the MiG-31K carriers themselves.

So one sqd MiG-31BM and one MiG-31K

Outside of war time the Kuznetsov spends most of its time in training.

I doubt it- from what I heard over the years, after spending a few weeks/months at sea, it stays the rest of a given the year in port or in the yard.

The AW gets even less training as it's based on the Kola with bad weather most of the time.

That's why IMO they should be all based in Crimea or Novorossiysk, with much better weather, big Zaliv Shipyard, & NITKAs nearby.

GarryB wrote:They have to train in the places they will be operating... no point going to a lake to practice because they wouldn't get it... no aircraft carriers allowed.-it's still a TAKR, not a CV with only an AW as an offensive weapon.

Operating in poor weather is more important than operating in good weather... train like the mean to fight.- there's plenty of poor & less then ideal weather in the Black & Med. Seas in fall/winter & spring; for the new pilots honing their skills, good flying conditions r safer.

The purpose of the carriers is mobile air power to support large ship operations... how many carrier groups will they base in Tartus?- the Adm. K is mostly a training ship, & it was & will be sent to E. Med. Sea many times anyway.

And what would be the point of operating a carrier group in the Med... it would be like the US wanting to send a carrier group to the Caspian Sea... way too vulnerable to enemy land based air power.... they would be very quickly crushed...- on it's way there or open Atlantic, it'll need to transit narrow N. Atlantic near Norway, GIUKG, the N. Sea, the English Channel, & Gibraltar, which will make it no less vulnerable to enemy land based air power & subs. Adm. K will have a CGN & SSN/GN escorts + the support of land based aviation from Syria, Libya, & Egypt.
The Caspian has no strait to get in it, but the Black Sea does, & unless the Montreux Convention is annulled, CVNs can't go there.

The focus is the Arctic and the Far East. Screw Europe.

-it's still a TAKR, not a CV with only an AW as an offensive weapon.

- there's plenty of poor & less then ideal weather in the Black & Med. Seas in fall/winter & spring; for the new pilots honing their skills, good flying conditions r safer.

- the Adm. K is mostly a training ship, & it was & will be sent to E. Med. Sea many times anyway.

.- on it's way there or open Atlantic, it'll need to transit narrow N. Atlantic near Norway, GIUKG, the N. Sea, the English Channel, & Gibraltar, which will make it no less vulnerable to enemy land based air power & subs. Adm. K will have a CGN & SSN/GN escorts + the support of land based aviation from Syria, Libya, & Egypt.

unless the Montreux Convention is annulled, CVNs can't go there.

until they get at least 2 more CV/Ns, the focus can only be on safe training & exercises with occasional deployments to the Med. Sea.

They can't base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea and they wont base it in Tartus... they will either base it in the Pacific Fleet to support the new helicopter carriers that will be based there to beef up Russian forces near the Kuriles or it will go to the North Sea Fleet with the second two new helicopter carriers they will make after the first two...

GarryB wrote:

-it's still a TAKR, not a CV with only an AW as an offensive weapon.

It is a CV, its strike component is 12 Granit long range anti ship missiles. The Kuznetsov is a CV and can't access the Med from the Black Sea and vice versa.
-it's a hybrid, but since it has LR AShMs, the AW isn't its primary weapon, therefore it's not a true CV. The K in TAKR stands for "Kreyser" or "cruiser" in English. Cruisers can go to/from the Black Sea. All Kiev TAKRs were built in Nikolayev & transferred to N & Pac Fleets.

- the Adm. K is mostly a training ship, & it was & will be sent to E. Med. Sea many times anyway.

It will become primarily a training ship when there are alternative carriers... right now it is the best air defence Russia can provide for its ships on overseas operations.- since now & in the foreseeable future there are no alternative carriers, it's a training ship by default.
What narrow N Atlantic? - Norway, Iceland, UK & Greenland surrounding it r all in NATO; the USN 2nd fleet is going to have subs, ships & aircraft there as it did in the cold war, if not more.

unless the Montreux Convention is annulled, CVNs can't go there.

Which makes any CVN operations there redundant.. and counter productive because it is already in range of Russian based air power and ground launched missiles.- In the European theater, the Med. Sea is where the VMF CVNs will be operating anyway & most of the time when not in training.

until they get at least 2 more CV/Ns, the focus can only be on safe training & exercises with occasional deployments to the Med. Sea.

They can't base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea and they wont base it in Tartus...

IMO they could open a new base at mid-way between Murmansk and Vladivostok.

-it's a hybrid, but since it has LR AShMs, the AW isn't its primary weapon, therefore it's not a true CV.

The K in TAKR stands for "Kreyser" or "cruiser" in English. Cruisers can go to/from the Black Sea.

All Kiev TAKRs were built in Nikolayev & transferred to N & Pac Fleets.

- since now & in the foreseeable future there are no alternative carriers, it's a training ship by default.

- Norway, Iceland, UK & Greenland surrounding it r all in NATO; the USN 2nd fleet is going to have subs, ships & aircraft there as it did in the cold war, if not more.

- In the European theater, the Med. Sea is where the VMF CVNs will be operating anyway & most of the time when not in training.

   
If they don't base it in the Black Sea, they will waste more $.

The only benefit of having it there is to show the flag while sailing past Norway, UK & France in the N. Atlantic.

GarryB wrote:

-it's a hybrid, but since it has LR AShMs, the AW isn't its primary weapon, therefore it's not a true CV.

Its primary weapon is not anti ship missiles used to sink enemy ships... its primary weapon is to fly AEW helicopters and fighter aircraft to defend the surface group from enemy air attack. The anti ship missiles are secondary... just like the self defence SAMs and guns it carries. It is a CV.- since it has LR AShMs which r more destructive than its planes, while officially designated as a TAKR, not CV or aircraft carrier, the Turks have no legal reason to block its movements in peacetime. If need be, it could sail with just helos to the Med. Sea & get its fighters flown in there via Iran & Iraq.
in fact it is rather likely that the Granits will be replaced with UKSK launch tubes and will end up carrying anti submarine missiles or even land attack missiles instead...- their types r not relevant, if the AW isn't the only offensive weapon on board.

The K in TAKR stands for "Kreyser" or "cruiser" in English. Cruisers can go to/from the Black Sea.

I know, but the K is not a cruiser, it is an air defence carrier...- it's also a cruiser capable of sinking warships & hitting land targets w/o using its aircraft.
Turkey let the Kiev and Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk class ships leave the Black Sea but I doubt Russia would want to nor would Turkey allow them to go back in and out on a regular basis operationally... except for very occasional repairs.- the Ulyanovsk wasn't finished & got scrapped; the Adm. K can go there for repairs & stay there as a training ship to save $ & to avoid possible future embarrassments.

All Kiev TAKRs were built in Nikolayev & transferred to N & Pac Fleets.

And all left and didn't go back except for repairs because Nikolayev was their only yard able to handle such ships, but now Nikolayev is not part of Russia so there is no reason to send any carrier of any type into the Black Sea.- there is Zaliv yard that can substitute for it & the 1 in Kola.

- since now & in the foreseeable future there are no alternative carriers, it's a training ship by default.

No... the reverse is true... they have two land based training facilities, and it is their only carrier so without any alternative carrier to do the job of defending Russian surface ships away from Russian airspace then it is their air defence carrier. After they have built one CVN and put it to sea then the K might be relegated to training only, ..- as the sole TAKR, it's to valuable to risk sending it that far; the VMF will have other surface ships with S-400/500s & land based aviation to support a naval group.

- Norway, Iceland, UK & Greenland surrounding it r all in NATO; the USN 2nd fleet is going to have subs, ships & aircraft there as it did in the cold war, if not more.

So what... are you suggesting there are no HATO subs and ships in the Med and Black Sea?- no, but there r AFBs & Bastion AshMs the Russians can use in BS & the E. Med. region to help the Adm K.

The Norway Iceland UK and Greenland gap is fucking enormous, and the US putting all of its fleets ships and submarines wont stop Russian ships sailing through there to get to the north atlantic...-but farther south there's Bemuda-Labrador-Azores-Portugal quadrangle it must pass through. The NATO subs, ships & aircraft won't loose the VMF CBG, even if they don't use their own CV/Ns to track it. The Gibraltar is also an ideal ambush site.

- In the European theater, the Med. Sea is where the VMF CVNs will be operating anyway & most of the time when not in training.

Why? It would make more sense when they have CVNs and the Kuznetsov to operate away from Europe... they can head down into the Atlantic and visit countries in Central and South America and Africa, or they can transit their own NSR and head through the Pacific to central and south america, Asia, the pacific ocean and the other side of Africa and the middle east...- sure, but is it going to be worth it? For visits, other big ships can be used with the same results.
The Med is full of hostile enemy states called the EU... a few ships or subs might visit Egypt and other countries there like Syria but not carriers groups... just not necessary.- for the "real world" training, I expect them to continue sending the Adm. K & future CVNs there.

If they don't base it in the Black Sea, they will waste more $.

..The entire Black Sea is an enclosed lake covered mostly by HATO or hostile countries...- the CV-16/17 r also deploying to the SC Sea bathtub with hostile Vietnam, Philippines & Indonesia on its shores armed with Soviet/Russian/US fighters, besides the USN &/ their allies patrolling it. the BS Fleet is now even better protected in Crimea than the S. Sea Fleet on Hainan.
Russian land based air power would be stretched but should be able to defeat any HATO surface force operating in the Black Sea... they certainly wouldn't benefit from having an aircraft carrier there.- they would by having it closer to Med. & Red Seas, NITKAS, & in the better climate, all of which will save $ on maintenance, repairs, & transits.
Having the Kuznetsov there would also mean having the two upgraded Kirov cruisers there too and the new helicopter carriers and the Slava class cruisers with upgrades... because they would all be part of the same surface action group... that is too big a force to keep in the Black Sea...-if need be, those ships can come from the N. or Pac. Fleet. in fact, if it stays in the E. Med., more smaller escorts with only 1-2 DDG/CGs could be enough.
even if in times of tension it managed to get to Tartus it would lack the air support from Russia and be jammed between the hostile forces of Turkey and Israel... but also all of HATO...- it will have enough air support from Syrian & Egyptian based VKS aircraft.

LMFS wrote:Naval Su-30SM in Crimea armed with Kh-31, ready to attend Donald Cook in case of need

- since it has LR AShMs which r more destructive than its planes, while officially designated as a TAKR, not CV or aircraft carrier, the Turks have no legal reason to block its movements in peacetime.

If need be, it could sail with just helos to the Med. Sea & get its fighters flown in there via Iran & Iraq.

- their types r not relevant, if the AW isn't the only offensive weapon on board.

- it's also a cruiser capable of sinking warships & hitting land targets w/o using its aircraft.

- the Ulyanovsk wasn't finished & got scrapped; the Adm. K can go there for repairs & stay there as a training ship to save $ & to avoid possible future embarrassments.

.- there is Zaliv yard that can substitute for it & the 1 in Kola.

.- as the sole TAKR, it's to valuable to risk sending it that far; the VMF will have other surface ships with S-400/500s & land based aviation to support a naval group.

So what... are you suggesting there are no HATO subs and ships in the Med and Black Sea?- no, but there r AFBs & Bastion AshMs the Russians can use in BS & the E. Med. region to help the Adm K.

.-but farther south there's Bemuda-Labrador-Azores-Portugal quadrangle it must pass through. The NATO subs, ships & aircraft won't loose the VMF CBG, even if they don't use their own CV/Ns to track it. The Gibraltar is also an ideal ambush site.

- sure, but is it going to be worth it? For visits, other big ships can be used with the same results.

- for the "real world" training, I expect them to continue sending the Adm. K & future CVNs there.

- the CV-16/17 r also deploying to the SC Sea bathtub with hostile Vietnam, Philippines & Indonesia on its shores armed with Soviet/Russian/US fighters, besides the USN &/ their allies patrolling it. the BS Fleet is now even better protected in Crimea than the S. Sea Fleet on Hainan.

- they would by having it closer to Med. & Red Seas, NITKAS, & in the better climate, all of which will save $ on maintenance, repairs, & transits.

.-if need be, those ships can come from the N. or Pac. Fleet. in fact, if it stays in the E. Med., more smaller escorts with only 1-2 DDG/CGs could be enough.

it will have enough air support from Syrian & Egyptian based VKS aircraft.

Probably better to use a couple of torpedos and blame it on old naval mines. How come non-black sea nations are allowed to sail warships into the black sea. Can Turkey not ban them? After all what legit military interest could non-black sea nations have there?

GarryB wrote:

- since it has LR AShMs which r more destructive than its planes, while officially designated as a TAKR, not CV or aircraft carrier, the Turks have no legal reason to block its movements in peacetime.

The Russians have no legitimate reason to want to send it in to the Black Sea... their new CVNs will operate in the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, so having basing facilities for an entire carrier group (ie the carrier itself and all the crusiers and destroyers that will be operating with it) in the Black Sea makes no sense at all. ..
The land based air power and air defence systems make the Admiral K redundant in the Black Sea and the Med.... it would be useless there except for further training in Syria and it can reach Syria by sailing from the Northern Fleet base where it is currently under repair. ..and if Gibraltar is such a trap then there is no point entering the trap.
-they may have more reasons to send them to the Red Sea & the Indian Ocean & even the W. Pac. to keep NATO navies in check there, & from the BS it will be a lot closer, avoiding the English Channel & Gibraltar.

sailing down the African and Central and South American Atlantic coasts offers dozens of interesting countries to visit..-the VMF isn't a cruise line to entertain its sailors & airmen!

- their types r not relevant, if the AW isn't the only offensive weapon on board.

Of course the types are relevant, if they are all self defence anti sub weapons then it does not have offensive arms and is a CV.-they'll have ASh/LACMs too, unlike non-VMF CVNs.

- it's also a cruiser capable of sinking warships & hitting land targets w/o using its aircraft.

Its primary armament is aircraft for air defence of a surface group of ships. It has secondary self defence weapons because its aircraft are not intended for strike missions... their new corvettes have strike weapons able to sink ships and attack land targets... are they cruisers too... especially the ones with a Helicopter landing pad and hangar...?-ur syllogisms stink! transposing the issue on corvettes is grasping for straws; with ASh/LACMs & AW, a TAKRN has 2 main weapons, & isn't a CVN- enough hairsplitting!

- the Ulyanovsk wasn't finished & got scrapped; the Adm. K can go there for repairs & stay there as a training ship to save $ & to avoid possible future embarrassments.

The Adm K cannot get repairs in the Crimea... it is too big, and they wont fix it at Nikolyev either...  it is at Murmansk AFAIK being repaired... it had just been in Syria... if they want to operate it from the Black Sea then why is it not getting repairs done there now?-If they are not upgrading it there why would they base it there or repair it there at any time in the future?-ask the VMF press service, but IMO they didn't have time & after the floating doc sunk decided to expand the 2 old docs into 1. the Zaliv docs can also be expanded: 'If u build it, they'll come". Later, Ukraine may implode & the Nikolaev yard may be revived.

.- there is Zaliv yard that can substitute for it & the 1 in Kola.

Even if they could... they aren't.-I won't bet on it.

.- as the sole TAKR, it's to valuable to risk sending it that far; the VMF will have other surface ships with S-400/500s & land based aviation to support a naval group.

You just contradicted yourself... if the K is too valuable to risk sending it away from land based aviation and air defence systems then it is worthless.-not if it's used for training & to show the flag, & not in the Western & Southern Hemispheres.
As you say keeping it close to Russian waters means you might as well use land based air defences and air power, and not being able to send it anywhere else restricts Russian surface ships to Russian waters or makes them vulnerable to surprise air attack around the world with no carrier support.-Exactly! as u said dozens of times, w/o fixed wing AWACS that needs CATOBAR, it'll be a sitting duck. By ur logic, India & PRC could also send their STOBAR CVs to S. America & S. Africa to show how tough they r on the high seas, damn the RN, FN, & the USN above all.
A carrier too valuable to use is of no value at all.-training, trials, & HADR ops r as important as goodwill visits to nations in the adversaries' backyards that take loans & never able to pay them back.

.-but farther south there's Bemuda-Labrador-Azores-Portugal quadrangle it must pass through. The NATO subs, ships & aircraft won't loose the VMF CBG, even if they don't use their own CV/Ns to track it. The Gibraltar is also an ideal ambush site.

During peace time who gives a fuck. During war nuke them and they wont be ambushing anything.-unleashing an escalating nuclear exchange? there's a reason Russia is developing LR non-nuclear arms.

- sure, but is it going to be worth it? For visits, other big ships can be used with the same results.

What other big ships? Any Russian surface group operating far from Russia will include Cruisers and likely destroyers and an aircraft carrier or two. Having carriers will make any ships on the trip much better protected and more aware of the aircraft and surface objects around them... instead of wondering what those blips are on the radar, they can send out aircraft to have a look. Peace of mind, if it is nothing and early warning of an attack if it is not nothing.- they'll have helos, UAVs & IL-38s with A-50/100s supporting them. The NATO ships may also follow them within the visual/radar range- any hostile air action will sign their death sentence.

- for the "real world" training, I expect them to continue sending the Adm. K & future CVNs there.

They have tested their aircraft and planning systems against a real world threat... they might want to test a few new weapon types and perhaps a few new tactics, but they are not going to keep the K there for more than a couple of weeks at best.-which gives even less reason to sail from Kola instead of Crimea; as mentioned above, they may spend a lot longer in the Indian ocean. Indeed, if the VMF keeps strong presence there, India will see that relying on the US & playing them vs. PRC is a dead letter.

- they would by having it closer to Med. & Red Seas, NITKAS, & in the better climate, all of which will save $ on maintenance, repairs, & transits.

Sailing carrier groups past the UK will be much more fun than hovering near Syria or Israel.-the VMF isn't a canoe club for any1 to have fun in; the VKS bombers can fly near it anytime & scare the shit out of the RAF & RN.

.-if need be, those ships can come from the N. or Pac. Fleet. in fact, if it stays in the E. Med., more smaller escorts with only 1-2 DDG/CGs could be enough.

YOU DON'T GET IT... the Carrier IS the escort... it is supposed to be escorting the surface ships... not the other way around... if it is only operating with a couple of little ships then they don't need carrier support.
Carrier support would be useful for a 6 month trip of Venezuela with a couple of helicopter landing ships to practise with Maduros troops or Cuban forces... or maybe even let Argentina have a look at your new helicopter landing ships... they might see a future potential use for them perhaps... hint hint hint.-Russia has a lot more on its plate in its own backyard than to play USN style war games in US & UK backyards. she should be content in controlling the Arctic & its other waters, at least for the foreseable future.

it will have enough air support from Syrian & Egyptian based VKS aircraft.

What do you think its purpose is if it must rely on ground based aircraft and air defence systems?-in its current form, it defeats its combat purpose.
..Turkey has been a good follower of the rules and Russia really has nothing to complain about really... Turkey sticks to the rules and is impartial because it works well for both Russia and Turkey when the rules are applied fairly and even handedly... which is what Turkey is doing.- u just confirmed an extra reason/utility for/of having the Adm K. in the BSF!

-they may have more reasons to send them to the Red Sea & the Indian Ocean & even the W. Pac. to keep NATO navies in check there, & from the BS it will be a lot closer, avoiding the English Channel & Gibraltar.

-the VMF isn't a cruise line to entertain its sailors & airmen!

.-they'll have ASh/LACMs too, unlike non-VMF CVNs.

with ASh/LACMs & AW, a TAKRN has 2 main weapons, & isn't a CVN- enough hairsplitting!

-ask the VMF press service, but IMO they didn't have time & after the floating doc sunk decided to expand the 2 old docs into 1. the Zaliv docs can also be expanded: 'If u build it, they'll come". Later, Ukraine may implode & the Nikolaev yard may be revived.

-I won't bet on it.

-not if it's used for training & to show the flag, & not in the Western & Southern Hemispheres.

-Exactly! as u said dozens of times, w/o fixed wing AWACS that needs CATOBAR, it'll be a sitting duck.

By ur logic, India & PRC could also send their STOBAR CVs to S. America & S. Africa to show how tough they r on the high seas, damn the RN, FN, & the USN above all.

-training, trials, & HADR ops r as important as goodwill visits to nations in the adversaries' backyards that take loans & never able to pay them back.

-unleashing an escalating nuclear exchange? there's a reason Russia is developing LR non-nuclear arms.

- they'll have helos, UAVs & IL-38s with A-50/100s supporting them. The NATO ships may also follow them within the visual/radar range- any hostile air action will sign their death sentence.

-which gives even less reason to sail from Kola instead of Crimea; as mentioned above, they may spend a lot longer in the Indian ocean.

Indeed, if the VMF keeps strong presence there, India will see that relying on the US & playing them vs. PRC is a dead letter

-the VMF isn't a canoe club for any1 to have fun in; the VKS bombers can fly near it anytime & scare the shit out of the RAF & RN.

-Russia has a lot more on its plate in its own backyard than to play USN style war games in US & UK backyards.

she should be content in controlling the Arctic & its other waters, at least for the foreseable future.

-in its current form, it defeats its combat purpose.

- u just confirmed an extra reason/utility for/of having the Adm K. in the BSF!

GarryB wrote:

-they may have more reasons to send them to the Red Sea & the Indian Ocean & even the W. Pac. to keep NATO navies in check there, & from the BS it will be a lot closer, avoiding the English Channel & Gibraltar.

Why avoid the English Channel or Gibraltar?-if nothing else, NATO may just declare them a live fire exercise area, forcing the CBG to go around Scotland, reducing the RF coffers. ..they can't go from Crimea because you wont get an entire carrier group at Sevastopol...
Why piss away money chasing around HATO navies, Russian ships have better things to do, and basing carrier groups in the BS is not going to happen. They wont even have helicopter carriers there...-anything like that can happen in Russia. Now they'll have a base in Sudan & access to Indian bases. Wouldn't it be good for Russia to contain the USN not only the North, but in the South too? To the Turks, they can say that their Adm. K. or a future TAKRN must go to Zvezda yard in Vladivostok for repairs. There's plenty of room in Crimea & Novorossiysk to base the entire CBG in the BSF.
The Pacific fleet would be the best place to send a carrier group to the Indian ocean, or a visit to Mexico or plenty of other countries...-only if they get at least 1 new TAKRN in commission & assign it in the Pac. Fleet.
Stuck in the med really limits the countries they can visit... it would be like buying a campervan and parking it across the road and down a block from your house.- they can use the Suez Canal to go to S. IO & even S. Atlantic/Pacific, if need be.

-the VMF isn't a cruise line to entertain its sailors & airmen!

No it isn't. Its job is to spread Russian influence and reach around the world to more than just the biased and bitter countries of the west.- I hope they'll succeed! Or should I write suckseed, siring their kids with local girls?

with ASh/LACMs & AW, a TAKRN has 2 main weapons, & isn't a CVN- enough hairsplitting!

..but these days a Russian cruiser will have rather more anti ship and land attack missiles than the 12 carried by the K.- it may get more new smaller Ms, & it doesn't matter if it has less than other ships- if it's a TAKR, it's not a true CV & restrictions in the BS won't apply. The Turks know batter not to rock that boat.

-ask the VMF press service, but IMO they didn't have time & after the floating doc sunk decided to expand the 2 old docs into 1. the Zaliv docs can also be expanded: 'If u build it, they'll come". Later, Ukraine may implode & the Nikolaev yard may be revived.

Even of the Ukraine went on bended knee and begged Putin to be friends and come back and use Ukrainian ports and businesses I doubt he would say yes, and even if he did Nikolayev is screwed... they put a grain silo in the middle of the main dry dock so it can't be used to build or fix large ships any more.- as Ukrainian Cossack Getman B. Khmelnitsky said: what was once built by human hands, can be destroyed by human hands.

-I won't bet on it.

The K is not in the Black sea getting its upgrades.... it is in Murmansk... if there were any plans to base and maintain and operate the K from the Black Sea or Tartus then that would be the place they would send it for its upgrades and repair surely...-that may still change, as discussed above.

-not if it's used for training & to show the flag, & not in the Western & Southern Hemispheres.

Screw the west... it will hopefully be showing the Russian flag all round the rest of the world, creating contacts and links and hopefully trade and military alliances...-today, the Skype can connect people faster than the VMF & VKS. China has business links all over the Globe w/o its PLAN visiting every backwater.

-Exactly! as u said dozens of times, w/o fixed wing AWACS that needs CATOBAR, it'll be a sitting duck.

If a ship detects a flying target 600km away from the ship group it can do nothing about it. With a carrier it can launch a flight of four MiG-29KR fighters to fly out to investigate and see what is going on.
-why can't a CGN/CG launch a UCAV from its tubes after its Ka-31s detected a threat? Their S-300/400/500s can shoot it down just as well as MiG-29KRs, if not better.

By ur logic, India & PRC could also send their STOBAR CVs to S. America & S. Africa to show how tough they r on the high seas, damn the RN, FN, & the USN above all.

First of all yes, damn the RN and FN and USN... they don't own the sea, and second yes, India and China should start exploring the world and finding there are other countries out there... countries that want to improve trade and have good relations with countries other than the three bullies you already mentioned.-again, they can use Skype & diplomats, no need for gunboat diplomacy anymore.

-training, trials, & HADR ops r as important as goodwill visits to nations in the adversaries' backyards that take loans & never able to pay them back.

Using loans to make small countries buy their weapons (they rarely give loans for anything else) at ridiculous rates is a western thing.- the debts of USSR got burned Russia too, & not only with weapons sales.

-Russia has a lot more on its plate in its own backyard than to play USN style war games in US & UK backyards.

THAT IS IT... Russia is not allowed a sphere of influence... it is not allowed a backyard... but it is not allowed in Americas backyard or UKs or Frances I presume...-for its own good, before it goes in others' backyards, it better get her own house & yard in order.

- u just confirmed an extra reason/utility for/of having the Adm K. in the BSF!

Rubbish. Any aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is trapped and dead meat. And for what... the air power it can currently provide is vastly inferior to the air power land based units could provide via A-50 and A-100 soon, and Su-35s and Su-34s and Backfires and MiG-31Ks...
Putting the Kuz in the BS would be stupid.