I doubt the UK has no operational control over them; conventional warheads could be used to destroy naval bases, airfields & planes on them.
Even if the UK had complete control of them they are not accurate enough for conventional warheads to be effective... Air fields are enormous places... an SLBM warhead coming in at 5 km/s is not going to take out every plane on the airfield... just the one it hits... not really a cost effective use of Trident really.
in the meantime, UDKs/LHA/Ds would fill the gaps- so not only the Adm. K. is used for training & real ops.
By the time these two Russian helicopter carriers are built the K and probably both of the Kirov class ships to get upgrades will all be back at sea, plus likely a few more Gorshkovs and perhaps a destroyer fitting out too...
Regardless what others say, having self respect is what matters- a nation next to 3 oceans surrounded by NATO/US fleets & bases must have at least 1 CV/TAKR with its escorts.
They also need to sort out home defence first as the top priority and they are in the process of getting Frigates and Corvettes into a decent rhythm of production... once they are being build in numbers then the other ships like destroyers and cruisers from the cold war can be used with the new helicopter carriers and the Kuz for trips away from Russian waters and production of the new destroyers and then new cruisers can begin.
If they rush it they run the risk of screwing it up... and blowing all their money on shit they can't use. The US can afford to do this all the time, but Russia cannot.
they won't go overseas- in the Black, Baltic, Med., Arctic & Okhotsk Seas the VKS will provide CAPs.
You don't need 25K ton helicopter carriers with 60 days endurance to operate in such places.... these ships are intended to operate further afield.
The USAF can mine & "carpet bomb" the Caribbean & S. Atlantic/Indian Oceans off Africa with B-1B/52s the same way VKS can E. Med. & Japan Seas with Tu-22/95/142/160s; sending CVNs there would be suicidal in a real naval war. China still has to show the USN that it also applies to the SC Sea.
Doing so would be an act of war which would result in the CVNs being meaningless because ICBMs and SLBMs will dictate the results, not some CV or CVN.
Russia is not building up her navy for WWIII, they are building up the navy so they can prosper in the future economically.
that proves the point: nothing is left the chance, after losing Cuba & Nicaragua.
It was Americas actions that cost them Cuba... Castro asked for American help first to get rid of the US Mob and colonial white people who were the problem and they said no, so he turned to the Soviet Union...
then, at least 3-4, if not 5 CVNs will be needed- will the RF economy be able to pull this weight?
2 CVNs would be fine... they want to ensure Russian access to the worlds oceans.... they are not planning to invade the entire planet...
not after the Yak-141 influenced F-35B is operational. China can give them stolen F-35 data if she didn't already.
Beginning to think the Yakovlev design bureau sold the Americans a Trojan horse... I honestly don't think a decent supersonic V/STOL fighter is possible.
they'll have Cuban, Venezuelan, Sudanese, Syrian, Iranian & S. African bases to land on.
Their primary mission is nuclear cruise missile attack against the US... how in hell could they possibly complete that mission from Venezuela or South Africa... and the US would shit bricks if you started storing nuclear armed cruise missiles in any of those countries.... and for what... what the hell is a Tu-160 going to do to defend a group of Russian ships in difficulty in the south Atlantic? Buzz them at supersonic speed and look cool?
even large UDKs won't have space for more than a few of them + helos & UAVs.
In other words they would not be able to carry a useful number... just a token number... which is worse than useless.
they may even deploy them there ahead of time, to leave nothing a chance; every station/base there has an airfield.
Rated for transport planes... not strategic bombers...
And transports don't refuel in Antarctica... they fly round trips so they don't need to use up the fuel they have down there because it is quite expensive to get it there...
it can, but it can't avoid detection for long & operate with impunity.
Anyone who watches the news can plot where it is roughly... might come as a shock mate, and I keep repeating this but you seem to ignore me.... a Russian CV or CVN has zero value during WWIII... no purpose, no use. In places like Syria or Venezuela it might be useful and even in Yemen where technically if Russia attacked it would be attacking Saudi forces and not western forces as such, but any western vessel tries to attack and they will get a first hand lesson on Onyx... with potential follow up lessons to come if they don't learn the correct lesson right away...
In peace time the US and the west will go out of their way NOT to get into a shooting war with the Russian Navy for obvious reasons and the Russian Navy will likely do the same. You might have noticed they have been doing this for quite some time now.
still, it did help the RN: 2+3=3+2.
It wasn't critical...
no, it would be better to forcefully remove them to the mainland or Belize or to the Tristan da Cunha/S. Africa like the Brits did to Diego Garcians. Let them taste their own medicine!
Hahahaha... you are quite right there... put them all on BA flights to London.... one way...
As I was saying- Russia may build something similar, faster & for le$$ than CVNs:
And end up with a pieces of crap that is fricken useless most of the time.
A real CVN with real modern fighters like a naval based Su-57 could kick arse most of the time... any warmed over Yak-141 would be slaughtered in many parts of the world today let alone in 10 years time.
He is of the same opinion as me:
In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers.
The problem is that carriers become useless toys when they are made too small to operate effective fighters and AWACS platforms, so even if you pay 10% of what a real CVN would cost it is a false saving because you get 2% of the performance which is worse than no CVN at all.
The Soviet Kiev class TAKRs carried more helos than planes.
Because it essentially replaced a helicopter carrier and was intended to be anti sub... for which Yak-38 forgers were worse than useless.
With 20 helos, they will be "helicopter carriers" that later could be adopted for fixed wings, just like these
With 20 helos they can do exactly what they were designed to do. Later it might carry slightly less helos so it can carry more drones...
Russia has them, & works on a better plane:
That is the lightweight twin engined fighter MiG are developing as the new light 5th gen fighter.
They do not need 20 when each fighter can launch a 2 or more Zirkons, they do however need supercarriers because a carrier without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces.
The point is that the worlds best air defences include air borne radar and air borne fighter planes... HATO air defences solely depend on that. Russian Air Defences include air borne radar and fighters and interceptors to add depth... the Russian Navy would be stupid not to want the same for their surface fleet.
Light carriers are a joke built by small countries that want to pretend that they actually have a proper fleet, a destroyer is a whole lot better than a light carrier and a missile cruiser is likewise better than a medium carrier.
Totally agree, a light carrier would be more of a target than the ships it was trying to defend and would be less value for money than a cargo ship modified to have an enormous AESA radar stack with four enormous AESA radar panels facing all directions allowing electronic scanning and loaded up with thousands of SAM launch tubes from short range self defence missiles to super long range missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles and satellites in space.
Well as I was saying Russia would not need more than 5 supercarriers to outmatch the pindos.
They don't need carriers to face the US... sub launched anti ship missiles would obliterate them easily enough, Russia needs carriers for peace time to ensure their ships are protected away from Russia based air power... they would not need more than two more CVNs...
Their Corvettes and Frigates can protect and control the sea around Russia together with land based air power... so some new destroyers and cruisers and two CVNs is pretty much all they need.... in addition to the support ships and naval port expansions needed to operate from of course... they have plenty of time for that anyway.
Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.
AWACs have a 360 degree view and can carry bigger radars that can see further... and the new AWACS planes can carry missiles to defeat incoming missiles.... remember these AWACS are not in the middle of nowhere on their own like HATO AWACS... they will be flying above some very heavily armed cruisers and destroyers equipped with enormous numbers of SAMs and radars and sensors etc... not to mention fighter escort...
Also carrier based AWACS are not as good as bigger ones like A-100.
It's good to have them but not critical. A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.
OTH radar often have a gap as big as 300km in close where they can't see properly... personally I think the best solution is an AWACS airship with a radar antenna 100m long in an airship that can operate at 40km altitude...
Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of their Zircons.
If the targets are US ships then detection wont be an issue. If it is anyone elses ships then they have satellites for that these days...
About technology, Russia uses US electronics in their hardware even in S-400. US stuff isn't obsolete and they lead in awacs technology.
Their space tracking radars are actually quite ordinary... and Russia doesn't use US electronics any more... they don't have access to it...
BTW I guess that means the SR-71 and F-35s are Soviet and Russian products respectively because they used Soviet and Russian titanium to make them...
That's not the same. First 400km radar for fighter is the irbis on su-35 and it need the powerfull su-35's engines which no carrier based awacs has.
The energy available to power a radar on an aircraft depends on the generators used.... there were jammer versions of the Tu-22M3 and the Il-76 that were tested and they chose the Il-76 with its 4 x 14 ton thrust engines over the 2 x 25 ton thrust engines on the bomber because the Il-76 had more power to run through the jammers... on paper the difference is minor... 56 tons for the Il-76 and 50 tons for the bomber, but in actual fact the difference was enormous because the Il-76
was able to take a lot more power off four engines than the Bomber was able to take off two.
But that doesn't mean russian radars are better since US invest much more in airborne radars than Russia.
If US radars were better than Russian radars then why would Russia bother with the Su-57 and PAK DA?
Russia was working on shooting down small RCS targets in the late 1970s.... because ballistic missile warheads are physically small...
Even modern Russian radars still have to focus tons of power in small areas to detect let alone lock onto a modern Stealth craft, Russian radars are good but they have to be focused which narrows down their coverage severely to find such aircraft and track them.
All radars use narrow beams to track targets... otherwise you are just wasting power.
That's the same for any radar really, bigger radars don't mean.
Bigger radar means better precision and discrimination performance.
Mind you such radars trying to find and track stealth aircraft will be generating tons of power which will give their positions way and make them targets.
In a network one radar might scan while all the rest listen for signals and returns can be collected together and analysed....
Targeting such radars is not actually that easy because they will be defended by several layers of SAMs... and aircraft.
The point of stealth aircraft isn't to hide forever from the radars its to get close enough and remain hidden long enough to destroy the AD and the radars.
The point of a stealth fighter is to be able to fly into enemy airspace and start cleaning up their airfields and aircraft before their HQs and comms centres and radars and major SAMs have been taken down by cruise missiles and also those stealth fighters using stand off munitions.
Problem is that it does not seem to work in all third world countries like Syria... so it might struggle in other places too.
A lot of work goes into finding, establishing a track, a lock on and then keeping that lock against stealth aircraft.
Just knowing it is present takes away a lot of its power... and for the F-35 so much effort and money has gone into its stealthiness and not into its general flight performance it is going to find itself in trouble more often than not if anything gets too close.
They have more money. They spend it to test any idea they have without thinking about it a lot.
They are also vastly more wasteful of money... like the people paying for the work didn't have to work to earn that money...