Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't argue with that, & the Russians know it too. But 1st it must be picked up where they left off- i.e Kiev class type TAKRs with STOVLs- they can afford them now, esp. after the Mistral deal was cancelled & all $ paid back with some extra added, thanks to the favorable exchange rate. TAKRs can be adopted for assault ship roles (UDK in Russian designation) as they can get closer to the enemy's shores.
A few more factors to consider:
1. There's no guarantee that any future CVNs won't have to be kept longer in service-like most other ships in Soviet & Russian navy- i.e. past 30 y. reactor life.
2. Aside from refueling it or installing a new 1, refits & modernizations take a long time, usually longer in RF than in the West.
3. 3 CVNs armed with only CIWS & SAMs like in the USN will need
"1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.", i.e. 4-5 warships to escort it
4. Simple math: 3 CBGs x 5 ships + 1-2 subs + 1 supply ship = 15 extra warships, 3-6 subs & 3 supply ships on rotation to make just 1 CBG ready to sail 24/7 beyond the EEZ.
IMO, only the #1 navy has the #s needed for that. Putin wants the RF to have a #2 navy. But when/if combined with the PRC & Pakistani naval surface & sub. escorts in the Indo-Pacific, it can be done.
Almost agreed. IMHO it can be TAKR (UKSK-M can have all kinds of missile sinclusive AAD) with similarly to Juan Carlos AC mission dependent air wing.
But in Russia there are not many capital ships and TAKR can still be considered as command ship + missile cruiser. In times of locla wars or humanitarian missions can be reequipped to other variant then AC.
What I diagree with you is need to be near US shores. For this are Rubezh, Yars, Samat, skiff and Kh-101, Kh-50 or new hypersonic missile missile with 12-14Ma