Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.
There is no need for carriers for Russia.
So Russia is only allowed to look at areas near its borders?
It would not need helicopter carrier and destroyers and cruisers if it is focusing on the arctic for the next 20 years... why are they upgrading the Kuznetsov and two Kirovs and Slavas if their only interest is the Arctic?
Why bother with port facilities in the Sudan if they are focused on the Arctic?
LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.
Possibly the fact that Russian missiles currently in service can't be stopped by western defences and the new missiles on the way are five times faster...
China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.
A British task force going to Hong Kong is going to be well within reach of land based air power from Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland... how would the UK destroy China exactly?
Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.
Based on what?
And even assuming they do... ships on their own are terribly vulnerable to surprise attack... having a carrier with AWACS means you are much better protected... not less protected.
Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.
Carries are not much good for WWIII, but if you want to operate surface ships in international waters they will be much much safer with the air support provided by a fixed wing carrier.
Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...
Russia needs more global access to the world than the Soviet Union did because most of the Soviet trade partners were eastern europe and therefore on Soviet borders. For the rest of the world access and trade was limited by its naval focus on dealing with US carrier groups.
Currently Russia has most of these lethal long range missiles you say make carriers obsolete, but even they are continuing to upgrade the K.
Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.
They are going to be spending large amounts of money on oil tankers and gas transports not to mention destroyers and cruisers... all of which will be much better protected and safe if there are aircraft nearby to offer support and protection.
Russia does not try to conquer CONUS so no point in comparing power projection capacities to such extent.
Indeed for all Americas superiority in carrier numbers it is intended for land strikes that will bring those ships within the attack range of some very capable anti ship missiles and air defence systems which will largely negate and even defeat such forces.
In comparison Russian carrier groups will be for defending Russia and will likely be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleets essentially operating in the arctic ocean countering US ABM cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs... Ironic because their new ones will be heading over the south pole rather than the north pole anyway...
So all of Russia's security issues are land based and not on remote shores.
Agree regarding current security issues, but tell me... if Russia decides to improve relations with countries around the world and Biden out of spite decides to start a regime change campaign to over throw all the countries that try to improve relations with Russia... up to and including mercenary invasions and overthrows... and even naval blockades... is Russia going to make speeches in the UN... will they send a strongly worded letter to the US government?
If you want to have international trade partners you need to be able to get to them with force... not to invade them, but to support them and help them... even just exercise with them so they know someone has their back.
Even though Russia has been helping Venezuela keep the yanqui wolves at bay, it is not going to go to war with America
on its behalf. If it was going to secure itself for a war with the US in Latin America and Africa, then it would have been
making more effort to build up some sort of carrier fleet.
The purpose is not war with the US, but having carriers operating with cruisers and destroyers makes them much more capable and effective in almost every role they might perform.
Of course, it is possible that Russia is making a strategic mistake. Having large carrier fleets which it can afford since costs
are not insane like in the corrupt USA, would be a useful deterrent to the yanquis in their conventional colonial adventures.
But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.
Russia is not the worlds police and it does not want the costs or responsibility to counter the evil US influence in the world, but then some countries want the kool aide and don't want to be saved from US culture. there are however, some countries around the world that don't want to be oppressed by a 1% that robs and steals from the public to make themselves richer while the majority slowly go backwards trying keep up the payments to the banks and credit card companies...
Russia needs carriers for Russia... not to look as cool as the US and certainly not to have the biggest ship or whatever bullshit.
The aircraft need to be the best they can make... ie right now Su-57s for fighters, but also an AWACS platform that can be land based for smaller countries or to fill gaps in big countries like detecting targets in mountains etc and manage smaller fighter groups to make them more effective...
They should both sell rather well internationally too.
In open seas they add the advantage of having an aiborne AWACS and fighters that can do anti ship mission but they will also attract more enemy ships and submarines.
Actually with AWACS aircraft your surface ships will be harder to find because that AWACS aircraft can send its target information to the ships so they have a live airborne view of the airspace around the ships down to sea level which together with long range lower wave OTH radar on the larger ships that wont be detected by enemy aircraft can give information on targets 400km to 5,000km away the way the land based versions do...
If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.
You can move them anywhere you want... if Russia is in conflict with the US then a Russian carrier with Su-57s amongst Cruisers and Destroyers effectively with the equivalent of S-500, S-400, S-350, plus BUK, TOR, and Pantsir means a pretty tough air defence to deal with... of course along with mach 9 missiles that fly at over 40km altitude in a manouvering and non ballistic flight mode with ranges of over 1,000km... they might not last more than a few hours in a shooting war but I would think the west is going to lose more men in a couple of hours than they have lost in the post WWII period.
More important during peace time an aircraft carrier means targets that appear low and fast from any direction can have a fighter scrambled to investigate... instead of the surface action group commander making a decision as to whether it is civilian or military... threat or non threat...
IMO the light carrier of 40kt presented few years ago is a perfect carrier. Just need 2 nuks reactors and one catapult for AWACS. Supercarriers are useless and will eat the money for frigates and destroyers.
Light carriers cost a large fraction of a real carrier without the benefits...
Also, your remark about VTOL's, tell me is Russia building any? You also know the two Helio carriers they are making would only be able to house less than 10.
VSTOL fighters are fools gold.... the F-35 would be a much better aircraft without the requirement for VSTOL performance in one version.
I understand the idea of standardisation... but because of the US Marines the F-35 is not the stealthy F-16 it could have been.
> Carriers are not tools of imperialism but simply tools for the use of air power at sea, that is, with missions of naval strike, ASW and AD of the fleet.
> Current paradigm of the use of carriers as per US practice:
- Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack
- Is a doctrinal aberration caused by US imperialism and an overwhelming international supremacy, and should never be used as a reference for the development of the VMF
Carriers don't have to be tools of imperialism, they can just be there to protect the ships they operate with who perform the missions and roles you want them to perform.
The misuse by the west should not cloud your judgement of their use and function.
Exactly, USN carriers are focussed in achieving sortie generation rates and firepower to compete with land based forces, which is an absurd proposition to start with, while they don't even have a decent AShM, which would be the first step for a naval strike carrier.
Their focus on land attack means getting heavily laiden bombers airborne and then fighter and jammer escorts and AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft as well.
The Russians just need cats to get AWACS in the air and its fighters can take off without them to operate in flights around the ships using radar information from the AWACS and their own IRST and passive radar use...
But if you face a powerfull country like Israel, France or Russia near their border your carriers are dead meat.
Bullshit. A Russian surface ship group would have an excellent IADS.... any country trying to sink them would seriously suffer rather badly... and with an aircraft carrier supporting those surface ships those countries will pay even more because the AWACS platforms will allow better managed air defence... not to mention missions to attack land targets with cruise missiles could defeat airbases from which enemy aircraft are coming from...
You seem to overestimate a carrier. It's just a a floating airport that need 1 hit to stop its operations. It's easy to spot with long range radars and its aircraft have nothing more than ground based aircraft. It carries around 48 fighters.
With the Kuznetsov it has the equivalent of 8 Pantsir air defence vehicles with gatling guns instead of twin barrel guns, plus the equivalent of about 18 TOR vehicles able to shoot down on its own 16 targets at a time.
Long range radars can be detected and targeted if an attack develops... 48 fighters operating within a Russian IADS that includes S-500, S-400, S-350, BUK, TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, as well as jammers and EW and of course fighter aircraft and their AAMs.
With 48 su-35, an A-100 and a 12 su-34 for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country.
If you have Yasen, Tupolevs, kinzhal and other kirovs it becomes just a practice target.
A US carrier trying to attack Russian territory would be a waste of time, but a US carrier in the Southern Atlantic or South Pacific is a huge force multiplier than increases the fire power needed to take on any group of ships.
Russia does not want Carriers to invade the US, but to keep their cruisers and destroyers safe no matter where they are around the world...
It needs that capacity so it can create solid trade links against the wishes of the west who have proven they will try all sorts of dirty shit to stop and contain Russia and China.
Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?
Except a Russian carrier might be a multi hull design of 40K tons with the capacity of an 80K ton ship.... nobody is suggesting Russia build Ford class white elephants...
Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.
How is a Yasen going to take and secure air control over a group of surface ships... how much early warning will a Yasen provide of a low altitude attack on a group of ships away from Russian airspace?
They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.
Every Russian ship will have launch tubes for cruise missiles... the Kalibr M will have 4,500km range missiles...
You do realize Russian interests go beyond the coastline?
Russian interests have to go beyond their coastline... EU and US sanctions and pressure mean business with them will never be normal... they have to look elsewhere and there is the rest of the world to trade with who don't have massive chips on their shoulders...
Any ship coming close to a well armed country is dead meat.
During times of open war.... which will be about 0.001 percent of its operational life span...
Besides with hypersonic and long range subsonic missiles... Russian ships don't need to go anywhere near enemy countries coastlines unless they want to.
Only good ships to have are subs and ships that can launch cruise missiles more than 2500km away.
Which is all Russian ships... and if they replace the Granit launchers with UKSK then that also includes the Kuznetsov.
In fact what you are describing is the Russian Navy... it is the US Navy that needs to get close so its planes can enter enemy territory and attack ground targets supported by inflight refuelling aircraft and jammer and fighter escorts.
The Russian carrier remains with the ships and offers air borne early warning and also air defence of the ships.
If it wants to the Russian ships can launch 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles to hit targets from 2,000km offshore to reach targets 2,500km inland.... any enemy air force going 2,000km offshore to engage those ships will then have to take on enemy fighters operating over their own airbase with full SAM support with full AAM loadouts with no external fuel tanks needed...
I would say the only air forces that could challenge such a Russian force would be HATO forces in which case those missiles would be nuclear armed.
Even US and its 20 carriers can't protect its interest 24/7.
That is true, but US ships around the world are much safer when operating within flight range of a nearby US land air base or US aircraft carrier...
The Israelis attacked the USS Liberty for hours after misidentifying it as an Egyptian freighter... but when they intercepted a call from a nearby US carrier saying Tomcats were inbound they suddenly realised the stars and stripes flag on the main deck...
Carriers and carrier aircraft support greatly increase identification performance all round...
If the AEGIS cruiser that shot down that Iranian Airbus had asked for Fighter support an F-14 could have flown over and visually identified the target as an Airbus and not another F-14 and just under 300 people would not have been murdered in cold blood.
the size & skills matter in the economy too. The RF economy= Spain's; at best, PRC's is 2nd only to the US now. Spain has 2 small LHAs & is allied to the US. Russia better follow her example or ruin her other developmental plans.
Russias economy will not grow if she is land locked in terms of trade partners, she needs international trade to sell her products and buy goods she can use.
they have IRPs, IL-78s & MiG-31s as escorts to cover mid-oceans from Russia & overseas bases;
All of their MiG-31s will be defending Russian airspace... not pissing away fuel operating over empty sea that is just stupid.
USN operates on a 3:1 ratio. ie you need 3 carriers to have 1 operating at all times. With their huge fleet they can surge to 6-8 maybe even as many as 10 carriers in some operational windows.
They also have plans to dominate every ocean area on the planet so they need 10-12 carriers to ensure they can have 6-7 carriers always available.
Russia does not need that... she has two main naval bases... Pacific and Northern so having 2-3 new carriers... CVNs along with an upgraded Kuznetsov would be fine...
Before Russia begins building aircraft carriers, it must rebuild its fleet. Even the amount they are building now is very little. The Pacific Fleet needs a lot of corvettes and frigates to offset the enormous advantages of China, Japan, and South Korea at least a little. The single-class 22350 ships cannot make up for this, where Japan itself has much greater forces than the Russian VMF in the Pacific.
Very true, but before they start mass producing enormous numbers of corvettes and Frigates they need to make sure the designs work in the different locations all year round and for a variety of different roles and missions.... the designs themselves are modular and use standardised weapons and sensors and systems and equipment... so once the layouts and designs are finalised they should be able to mass produce them rather rapidly and in decent numbers... and once that is achieved then scaling up the design to make destroyers and cruisers is the next obvious step.
Obviously destroyers and cruisers are not simply scaled up vessels, they need larger volumes of defensive and offensive weapons and they need to operate much further from port for much longer periods...
Plus all the infrastructure in home ports to support all these ships and the support ships they need to operate with them.
I must say that I am pleased they are getting the basics right and making mine sweeper ships and other types many modern navies neglect.... without them a navy can be trapped in port till the enemy mines are dealt with....[/quote]