they r not China to do that in 2 years as with their CV-17.
No, they are not China... they need to be able to use CVNs they build so taking 6-10 years is a good thing because they need to build up the land based infrastructure and sea based infrastructure to support it in operation which is not going to take 2 years...
it's not a 0 sum game. Adm K. is a case in point: w/o it, the VMF would be a laughing stock.
Those who don't take Russia seriously laugh either way... if there is an Adm K they claim they smoke like chimneys, so if when they don't have it at sea they will whine it is never available... who gives a F^%k about those
they wouldn't say anything nice about Russia even if Russia cured cancer and gave away the medicine for free.
You need to stop listening to what others say or think, they are not your friends and their criticism is not constructive but destructive.
In fact when they are criticising hardest you know you are doing something right.
The same with the RTN carrier. They r still useful even if deficient.
All types of carrier are expensive but if you want to go with helicopter carriers and landing carriers and put a few pissant half assed fighters on it you are totally wasting your money.... it is OK.... if you can't afford a fixed wing CATOBAR carrier then you also can't afford to pretend you can land troops or use helicopter carriers.... because without proper air cover they are going to get slaughtered and you might as well not bother.
It is like saying I want to go mountain climbing but I can't afford life insurance... I'll go anyway... my wife can sell one of our 16 children if I die to pay the bills.
the JMSDF may deploy it to the W. & S. Pac/Indian Ocean to show the flag, on hum. assist ops &/ exercises with others. Even if/when the VMF has CVNs, sending them to Venezuela or sub Saharan Africa won't be worth the risk & $.
When they completed Corvettes and Frigates they sent them on long distance testing runs... do you think they will keep a new CVN let alone an upgraded Kuznetsov at the pier just in case and to save money?
it's also about strat. location on SLOCs (in case Panama Canal is blocked; CVNs r too big to fit in & must go around Cape horn or the World to transfer between fleets) & next to the Antarctic.
Rubbish... before Argentina attack Britain and the US never gave the region a second thought and even afterwards they really don't care that much about the area until it comes time to extract oil of course...
but at what cost? they have more pressing needs than spending $Bs on a new arms race like the USSR did.
It has nothing to do with an arms race... I am not suggesting building 150K ton carriers and needing 20 at least to overmatch the USN... this is about making the Russian Navy a global force that can go where it pleases for as long as it pleases without being too vulnerable.
if they r sent to fight another Argentina of 1982 vintage, it will be enough.
There are no Argentinas of 1982 vintage and even if there was you can guarantee instant US and UK and likely French support which makes them rather more dangerous. More importantly you complain that it might take 10 years to make a proper new CVN... it would take rather longer to get a VSTOL fighter that actually works working and on ships operationally anyway.
The Tu-95/142/22M/160s have more un/refueled range than the Vulcans had.
They do, but without somewhere to land locally they are just long range cruise missile carriers... and even Russian corvettes can carry cruise missiles.
The current Kalibre cruise missiles the Russian Navy uses are 533mm calibre so they can be launched from subs torpedo tubes. New models that are 750mm calibre and are longer and fill up the UKSK launch tubes should have much better range... the current Kalibrs are about 6m long and 533mm wide and are comparable to the air launched Kh-55 in terms of range... 2,500km... but the Kh-55SM has external conformal fuel tanks for a range of 3,000km. The current missile is the Kh-101 which is longer at 7.5m and wider too and its flight range is 4,500km. The UKSK tubes take missiles up to 10m long and 750mm wide so the new naval launched cruise missiles for UKSK launchers can be that big which would allow much greater flight ranges..8-9,000km... or 4,500km with a much bigger warhead.
VTOLs &/ MiG-29Ks can do them.
They don't have any VTOLs and if they have MiG-29KRs then they have fixed wing carriers which makes long range strike aircraft redundant.... an S-70 with a solid rocket booster to get it airborne would be an excellent naval strike drone... instead of folding wings you could roll them up to a machine that the wing itself rests upon... the undercarriage can be raised and then the machine rotates them so that the drone is held with its nose vertically down... you could stack dozens in a very small space... without any wing folding BS.
they would deploy subs, ships (incl. CGNs with powerful AD), VKS fighters & bombers there as soon as any hint of trouble is detected. CVNs r not indispensable for the VMF, at least in the foreseeable future.
What are you talking about? If the ships that need protecting are visiting the Russian base at antarctica how are they going to be bombers and fighters there at the hint of trouble?
The point of a carrier is that it can move anywhere around the world with the ships it is operating with.
they could help with blockade.
What we did at the time is probably about all we could do... we sent a ship to Britain to perform duties that freed up another British ship so it could go down to the Falklands to support the operations. I seem to remember the Aussies did the same.
I doubt the UK has no operational control over them; conventional warheads could be used to destroy naval bases, airfields & planes on them.
Conventional warheads would make them useable, but a few problems leap to mind... first of all they don't exist, and second of all attacking mainland Argentina would be an escalation... remember there were British regiments on the Falklands when the Argentinians invaded... for every Argentinian killed on the mainland they might have just executed a local and a solider they had as prisoners... hell the best way to win is to simply execute all the Falkland Islanders and send Argentinian civilians to replace them... and let the Falkland Islanders to vote for their own future like the US and UK demands when they know the result will suit their interests and not when they know it wont.