They are not more expensive unless they are really massive.
A foreign country is not going to allow Russia to take over their main port unless they promised serious upgrades.
Building a new port from scratch wont be cheap either... and could all be taken away in a single vote.
Is it? I don't see much evidence of that yet.
Gaps are appearing in what was once impenetrable armour... ships catching fire... obsolete platforms continue to be used or on teh verge of being put back into production because their new replacement is shit.
The USN was not of much use in Syria. Once Russia was there all the US could do was glower disapprovingly.
With the Syrian government on side it was made difficult but terrorist groups in a large portion of the country are still being supported by American mercenaries drawing wages as US soldiers.
China would question that. Russia is a world power today already.
I would say neither are until their navies show they can operate beyond their borders on their own.
The west continues to try to contain both countries as regional powers with nuclear weapons.
Not with any intensity. Even in WWII the USA had to capture bases to use as logistics centers for the pacific campaign.
The Russian Navy wont be invading countries or Island hopping... it would be more like the Falklands war, except protecting the locals from an evil colonial power...
If you are fighting, and you have long supply chain, it can be disrupted.
Except it wont be a line... it will be a group of support ships that will need escorts from Russia or the nearest friendly country to the conflict area and back.
if Russia was fighing a massive war with a remote fleet, how easy would it be to sink a few supply ships and upend the campaign.
The best way to prevent ships being lost will be good quality modern ships in numbers that are useful.
If the UK had a real full sized fixed wing carrier with decent fighters they probably would not have lost any ships at all.
Russia has the added advantage of having quite a few submarines they could send and operate near the conflict zone for both defence and attack if needed.
Russia has bases in Vietnam and Venezuela, they do not park a significant military presence there to avoid political issues.
Why do you think the west has a problem with the Russian Navy expanding and operating world wide... we know they care about Russia and want what is best for the Russian people right?
Or is it more a case of containment and isolation... something they drive for to keep Russia from growing and developing... and also the countries Russia trades with....
It also reflects the failure of Russia to mitigate the impact of US sanctions.
Matches the failure of the EU to mitigate the Ukraines own sanctions on Russia... it is not easy to just start buying products from a country to support its economy...
The price for opposing the USA is very high and often the benefits for not opposing are quite good.
The price for being a good little bitch is that you end up changing you laws to suit them.... which is secret code for opening yourself up to the worlds biggest and richest families to buy everything of value and dominate your economy like they do in the west so they can make even more money... what is not to love?
I am sure the Cuban people secretly desire a future where they can either work for peanuts in a sugar plantation, pick cotton, or serve drinks to fat ugly ignorant white foreign people at hotels and casinos owned by the American mob.
There is not much incentive, except for some pariah states, to be be in Russias orbit. That is the reality.
That is the game the west plays and it is what they want you to believe is your only choice... that is why Putin scares them so much because BRICS will break that dream... if it survives.
Many missile require maintanace.
MEans on sea they need access to the launch container.
Old ones... yes... new ones no.
They will be buried in their cell array so the inside ones wont be reachable manually from below deck but they will be all electronically monitored, and will not require fueling or maintenance for the voyage.
It is enought to have only one type of missile that needs maintanance to keep the side access
Not very practical because on the bigger ships they will be packing them side by side.
Old systems had rotary internal mounts to rotate missiles into line with launch hatches... new missiles get their own hatch and no need to rotate or move them meaning far more efficient storage.
The SS-N-19 was fixed but angled and with no under deck access. Rif and Rif-M and also naval TOR had rotary launchers and had under deck access, but the new ones likely wont.