Exocet? they could not even stop Skyhawks with dumb bombs!!! And the Argies only had 6 exocets.
They had different variants of Exocet, and they had more than 6.
An exocet missile is a smaller target than an Skyhawk and they both move at the same speed so the Exocet is the harder target for air defences.
But as you say they failed in a lot of ways... but after the war it is OK they said because the Soviets don't have any sea skimming missiles.... hahahahahaha...
Russia can rain ASMs on a carrier group.
They can, but so what?
They can rain ballistic missiles on Europe should Europe stop wasting its time with big huge airfields and SAMs too because they are just sitting ducks and they are expensive too...
The US carrier group is only powerful against very weak foes.
A US surface ship group without aircraft carriers is vulnerable to much weaker threats than Russia... aircraft carriers don't make the USN weaker... right now they just don't make them strong enough...
Those are becoming increasingly rare as missile tech and drones keep improving. waterborne drones will also be a HUGE threat to carriers in the not too distant future.I think carriers yes, but smaller ones.
Smaller carriers will be less useful and less capable than bigger carriers... so they will increases costs but wont increase protection...
Look at the Falklands war... if it had happened in the mid 70s and the Brits still had the HMS Eagle and upgraded it to operate Phantom fighters and Buccaneer strike aircraft and proper ship based AEW aircraft the Argentines would have had no chance and the Brits probably would not have lost any ships.
By having slow weak short ranged fighters they had to keep their carrier back and safe from attack which rendered it even more of a token than it would otherwise have been...
Any attack on a Russian ship implies the same penalties as attacking a US carrier. If a Russian ship was attacked by US planes, there would be a) either some very tense talk of b) Russia would attack a US base or ship.
But you are missing the point... having an aircraft carrier nearby will stop any "accidental" attack... it was a radio call from a nearby aircraft carrier in the Middle East to say F-14 Tomcats were inbound that stopped the Israelis hammering the USS Liberty and trying to sink her...
It's not bull at all go do research, you are crossing how a carrier is designed verse how someone uses it.
So if the Russians wanted US type carriers, please tell me which aircraft were the strike planes? They had Su-33s and Su-25s on board but all the Su-25s were unarmed and were only two seaters with no weapon pylons and were used for training to land on the carrier. The Su-33 had no air to ground weapons capability except for dumb bombs and unguided rockets.
If they wanted a strike carrier then the MiG-33 would have been a much better choice... being fully multirole... but they rejected it.
Etc a gun is built the same way but it can be used in different applications
Of course, but it will be best suited to the applications it was designed for... a 9mm Makarov pistol can be used as a squad support weapon... but not very effectively.
A Corvette with a Helicopter pad could carry a Ka-52K helicopter and be used as an aircraft carrier.... but not very effectively either.
Which I find funny because US carriers are designed to protect air power and provide air cover to a battleground, not to overthrow a government.
How does an aircraft carrier protect air power? What air power does it protect... the only air power in the area of a carrier is embarked on that carrier... but if the carrier protects itself then why the AEGIS class cruisers?
The aircraft carrier has fighters for CAP and also strike aircraft for deep strike missions into enemy airspace... the fighters protect the ships but are also there to protect the strike aircraft. The AEGIS class cruisers are there to protect the carriers and the other ships.
You really need to chill on your Anti-US rants for when its actually makes sense to do em
Oh please... if anything I am too nice to America...
Russian wants US-style carriers, they have said so. So you are lying end of story.
Yeah... America is the pinnacle so any country that wants better has to copy America... except if they did want US style aircraft carriers they would be talking about 100K ton ships with strike aircraft and more fighters to protect them... instead they are talking about 70-90K ton carriers...
I don't think the VMF would want CVNs optimized only "for land attack or for naval strike and fleet air defence"- they'll prefer them "modular"- i.e. flexible platforms capable of all of the above, regardless of their size. It all will depend on the composition of AWs & ordinance carried.
The VMF are navy, they want any attack or strike to be navy ship based... not aircraft based.... by the time these CVNs hit the water they will likely have drones that could perform strike missions and then return to refuel and rearm... Sending manned planes into enemy airspace means SEAD missions and fighter top cover... in other words for every single bomber you send you have to add inflight refuelling planes and fighters and jammers and enemy air defence suppression aircraft... pretty soon you have dozens of aircraft in the air and the cost even if you don't lose any will be a large fraction of the cost of a cruise missile which will be much stealthier or faster and therefore much more likely to get to the target and destroy it.
Russia has such ships too-
Large flat topped ships that aircraft can land on are no substitute for an aircraft carrier... you need to carry troops and fuel and ammo for the helicopters... and just normal civilian ships are horribly vulnerable to military action.
In the Falklands war several civilian support ships were sunk because a group of ships was attacked... the military ships popped smoke and decoys and jammers, but the civilian ships were sitting ducks... the military ships decoyed the missiles away from them but the civilian ships had no decoys or EW kit and they were hit. But then military ships were also hit too...
What I am trying to say is that trying to do it on the cheap leaves you with poor capabilities and a fragile ship that is easily sunk... in comparison something like Kuznetsov has 192 naval TOR missiles ready to fire, and about 8 Kashtan gun/missile systems and AK-630 gun turrets... not as individual systems but as a network all working together to protect the ship using the main search radars to detect threats and also the information from any Ka-31 helicopters that might be airborne too. It also has chaff and flare launchers and jammers and smoke rounds and EW systems too... and also fighter aircraft...