Sorry there is no way Russia was ready at the time (1947) to build a more advanced plane then the TU-04.
Oh please... the Soviet B-29 had nothing like the range needed to fly from Russian air space to the US with anything like a useful payload... at best it could reach most of Europe and Japan that had already been devastated by war anyway.
The Russians had a range of heavy four engined bombers that were state of the art when they were built even if they do look archaic now.... the Pe-8 looks every bit as modern as any bomber the British built during WWII.
Stalin had savaged the aerospace industry with his purges and while Tupolev may have been able to design a superior airframe, I doubt at the time they could have surpassed or matched the engine tech.
Yeah, you say that like the Tu-4 was actually a carbon copy of the B-29 when it wasn't. The Shvetsov ASh-73 was an evolution of an American engine but not related to the engine in the B-29 and was already in use in the Pe-8 four engined bomber.
They worked on all sorts of improvements but the engine itself like the plane was a dead end.
Their performance was completely inferior to the Tu-16s that replaced them... they had to make special models to carry the Soviet nukes of the time... they were pointless exercises in propaganda. In 1956 the Bear replaced them being a bomber with the range and payload to actually threaten the US...
Not sure if the TU-04 has the computerized guns. Russia has a history of brilliant people supressed by their political system and culture.
The simple act of replacing all the pea shooter 50 cals with proper 20mm cannon the Tu-4 had gun defence vastly superior to US models... American 20mm cannon were rather poor in comparison till they got their gatlings... and by then the Soviets were already using 23mm and 30mm guns.
Even the brilliant Mig-15 would not have been possible without British engine tech. (neither would the Saber for that matter).
You mean like the Mustang was junk until they replaced the Allison engine with a Merlin?
The point is that the window with the British engines was quickly shut, but they have managed well enough ever since.
They are in no way dependent on Britain for jet engines today.
Kaliber missiles are not very useful for opposed landings where you need saturated and very timely strikes.
That is why their corvettes have 100mm guns and their frigates have 130mm guns... and I suspect their Destroyers and some landing support vessels might have 152mm guns... perhaps even 203mm for cruisers if we are lucky.
That is, - MASS. STOBAR launches simply cannot carry the payload of CATOBAR, but even with a ramp a MIG29 can carry much more payload then a KA-52 and deliver it faster with a much higher sortie rate.
It is the 2020s not the 1920s... A MiG-29 carrying GROM bombs should get airborne fairly easily if needed, and STOBAR does not require setting up Steam cats for each take off... aircraft can be set up to take off from each of the 4 takeoff positions and then launched in order and so it continues.
If you consider how much ordinance a MIG-29 or Okhotnik can deliver in 1 day vs a KA-52..that is your decider.
If you make careful preparations then the landing should be largely unopposed so turning the beach into the surface of the moon is not a key strategy.
The MiG-29s will be providing top cover and shooting down enemy drones and missiles directed at the landed forces and the ships and also taking on any CAS aircraft or enemy helos that might be detected. Helicopters will be landing troops and supporting landed troops by directing their fire at enemy forces rather than just making craters in the sand.
They do have landing ships designed to launch a barrage of unguided artillery rockets to prepare a beach for "landing", but ideally a huge smoke screen and speed is the best solution.
Its not right to say if a MIG-29 or KA-52 is more useful. It really depends on the situation. A KA-52 is not gonna be useful for delivering troops either. In fact its a pretty single minded beast.
They do totally different but necessary jobs... the MiG-29 would be combat air patrol and air superiority, while the Ka-52 is a scout/attack helo that will be looking for targets and engaging them at extended ranges... and supporting troops landed by Ka-29 or Minoga or boat.
As for AWACS the Chinese carrier based AWACS is imminent. For now they probably use HELOs.
My understanding is that they have bought lots of Ka-31s, but they might have modified a domestic type as well...
SSBNs can prevent it or deliver retaliation;
No, they can only retaliate...
SSNs & SSKs r needed to protect them, besides participating in peacetime ops & local wars.
Not directly, otherwise the enemy can just identify locations where your subs all operate and launch a dozen SLBM warheads to detonate in the water... all equally spaced 10-20km apart to vapourise everything.
He isn't implying that subs alone can win any war.
He is saying forget having a world wide naval presence.... lets just curl up in a ball and take all the shit the west can deal and don't think of being able to think or act for ourselves...
Russia has road mobile ICBMs & may revive BM trains.
They do, but I am not using that as an excuse to say SSBNs are expensive... Russia should just get rid of all its subs... I mean if it is not acting outside of Russian waters then WTF does it need billions of dollars worth of SSNs and SSBNs... a few SSKs for coastal water defence will be fine... except that creates the same problem... without the global reach of SSNs then Russian surface ships would be too vulnerable to enemy subs AND enemy aircraft to be confident to operate safely on their own.
If Russia needs anything she doesn't have, or it's too expensive to extract/produce, she has a long borders with former Soviet Republics, China (which in turn borders on SE Asia & Pakistan which borders on India & Iran which borders on the Caspian Sea & Azerbaijan which borders on Russia) & Mongolia- they can supply her with the same or similar goods that r worth buying from Africa & L. América.
Which means regime change in each of those places and Russia is our pussy. They are already actively trying it in Iran and Syria and Turkey as we speak and the hostility to China.... haven't you noticed?
As in the Soviet times, they can do w/o plenty of bananas, coffee & cacao. Georgian tea & wine can be transported via the Black Sea, air & land.
Fuck Georgian wine and tea... why support those bastards? How about trading with countries that are not actively attacking or trying to destroy them... like countries outside of HATO... if you want to buy from middle men you pay the price they offer, and they can cut you off any time they like.
Russia is nearly 100% self contained & sufficient; she doesn't depend on overseas trade & SLOCs as China, UK, France, SK, Japan & the Americas. (Btw Japan will become a continental nation after roads r built to Sakhalin & Hokkaido- making her dependent on Russia for land route to Europe. Then, the US will be shown the door.)
You talk about self contained and self sufficient, but you are talking the same game as the US... encircle them and isolate them... then destroy them... or in this case they destroy themselves.
Russia is probably the only country on the planet that could do well if completely cut off... food and energy self sufficient, if the Russian people could put up with it then they would be fine... the North Korean and Cuban people put up with it but being smaller countries they needed outside support to avoid famine and serious deprivation... North Korea would prefer famine than surrender to the Americans. Most European countries wouldn't last 5 minutes under the same duress.
Russia should not allow itself to be isolated. It can't change its land borders but it can use the sea to reach the entire planet... there are plenty of countries that will buy Russian natural gas and wont try to screw them with stupid local laws about suppliers and pipe owners and such like. Those countries might start out just buying energy, but GM free and Steroid free food is appealing too and Russia makes certain food types and place around the world make all sorts of different food types... trading means more variety and both can make money and develop. Russia might be able to help with electricity production and major construction projects... Russia has been building a lot of roads recently and rail lines, and of course they make excellent weapons too...
The bottom line is that CVNs r not worth as much, if at all, to Russia as to the US, UK & China. She doesn't have possessions in Hawaii, California & Alaska anymore; $ from its sale were used to build railroads in Siberia, not the blue water navy.
You are not getting it. US CVNs are for invasion and bombing and destroying and murdering, British ones and French ones are to ensure they get their way... whether it is in the Falklands or some other stolen piece of territory they have decided they want to keep because there is oil or other valuables there.
For Russia a CV or a CVN is for protecting Russian surface ships and subs beyond the range of Russian land based air power and support.
It is not about bombing and regime change... that is the game of the west... it is to ensure the safety of Russian subs or ships or both in international waters by providing air cover and early warning of low level or stealthy attacks against the ships or subs. It is a way of getting lots of helicopters together too on a ship equipped as a command vessel.
It really depends on who the opponent is. Against NATO/China no way. All others depends on how far you are willing to go. Destroy Navy, blockade and mine, use Kaliber to destroy all runways, decaptitation strikes and start taking out infrastructure. Game over..if necessary threaten nukes. = surrender
I thought I was being clear by calling it a world war... so basically HATO. I wouldn't call a conflict with China or India a world war.
If the US decides to blockade Venezuela Russia can send Russian flagged vessels escorted by subs.
What is the sub going to do when the Russian flagged vessels get boarded by US Marines from helicopters... a Russian flag offers no protection if you don't have a navy...
It doesn't mean anything if the Russian Navy does not have a global presence via cruisers and destroyers and to make them safe aircraft carriers.
They can also provide Venezuela with means to fight back against it with KH-31s.
How do they get them to them? That is like giving a black guy a knife when he is getting hassled by the police in the US...
The use of Kaliber from the Caspian sea was a very powerful message that Russia can put ships into a sea that is 100% inaccessible to the USN and still strike USN targets in highly strategic areas.
And by only building Covettes and Frigates you are sending another message... we spent big money making amazing weapons but we are pussies and we don't want to leave home port.... fuck our commercial ships world wide because we are not going to do shit about it.
A submarine is not a useful weapon in peace time... it is only effective when it is hidden and when it is hidden it is of no use in peace time.
Say the US stop a Russian transport ship and says turn around you can't go to Venezuela... what is the Russian sub going to do?
Sink a US ship?
Submarines are hand grenades... they are not to talk quietly to sort it out... it is just bang.... now some people are dead and this shit just got really serious.... because surfacing a sub wont get that freighter through the blockade, but it will get practise depth charges fired at you and lots of ships chasing you around with active sonar practising WWIII... none of which is good.
In comparison a Russian carrier group arrives for a planned exercise and the Americans are not going to board a carrier and tell the captain to turn around.
The Kaliber missile housed in a container is also a nasty little beast. If the USN stops a Venezuelan flagged vessel...who knows what is in the container? SURPRISE!!!
The thing is that it is meaningless until you use it and once you use it a civilian container ship is real easy to sink... torpedo in the middle will do it.
With a Russian carrier group no shots need to be fired... the Americans know it is their back yard, but then the Baltic States and georgia and ukraine and belarus are Russias technical back yard and the US has been pissing in that water for decades...
Russian CVNs means Russia can show strength without starting WWIII, but assert her own interests around the world.
No country is going to trade with Russia if Russia can't turn up with a navy to defend them from the western backlash or giving up the kool aide.
Subs may not be able to defeat NATO or China, but they can make the cost of war incredibly high and also make a war against Russia unwinnable.
A war against Russia is already unwinnable. I am not saying get rid of submarines... I am saying they are only good for war on their own, which makes them less useful than a carrier and cruisers and destroyers that can perform visits to countries around the world and spread the word that Russians are not what the western media likes to depict.
Unfortunately it also makes Russia pretty intimidating as a partner at the trade and commercial level.
I disagree... it is the fact that Russia can't reach the rest of the world by any other means than the sea and her navy has been neglected that is holding her back.
If Russia had any brains they would block off all train and road and air links to the EU and refuse to allow the transport of goods to the EU from Asia or vice versa... and Russia should then offer to sell to Asia what they were buying from the EU, and say to the EU you can only buy our products and not stuff from Asia.
Russia does not benefit from the North Sea Route or the Nord Stream II or South Stream as much as the EU does... they should be adding tarrifs and imposing sanctions instead...
1) During the US-Japan war in the 1940s they actually had a function. Now they have zero in any
engagement between military superpowers. This is the critical point, they are no longer useful for
serious war that will transition to nuclear exchanges.
I agree... building CVNs to fight WWIII would be stupid.
I am saying that if you want to operate world wide you need bigger ships than Frigates. Frigates and even Corvettes could sail around the world just find but it would be like touring the world on bicycle... and might I add when they do it on TV you don't see the 20 trucks full of gear and cameras and shit they carry... you just see the bikers having fun.
If you want to be able to do as you please then you need a navy with destroyers and cruisers... but even the best equipped destroyer and cruiser is the equivalent of SAM batteries and air defence gun units and a few artillery regiments and maybe a helicopter unit... if the enemy has any air power then you are fucked, because they will find your range and contain you and knock off any support ships supplying your forces.... and in the case of a lot of countries just getting you to split up so each part can be attacked and overwhelmed will make even the best ship vulnerable.
An Aircraft carrier means extra depth and warning and reach for your air defence... it increases the range of your sight and your claws if needed, but it also increases your mobility... there are fast ships but none can go supersonic.... and even the cheapest smallest Corvette costs more than quite a few MiG-29KR aircraft and you likely wont have many Corvettes on the other side of the planet... sending two or four planes to investigate a dot on the radar screen is faster and cheaper than sending a destroyer or a helicopter... and two or four fighters should be better able to defend themselves than a helicopter or two.
What is the value of knowing that dot is an Airbus 320 and not the F-14 you thought it might be... doesn't that make surface groups more effective with accurate information?
I remember when it happened and the news described the AEGIS as state of the art in terms of radar... it had what they called at the time independent target ID... the radars were so amazing it could count the turbine blades in the engine of the target and independently identify the target based on that "signature".
Of course it turned out to be bullshit... they identified a climbing civilian Airbus as being a descending F-14 fighter.... if only they could have sent a fighter plane to investigate it properly... instead 289 people got murdered that day.
2) Corollary of the above is that they serve zero purpose for Russia as a tool of national defense.
Russia needs to expand beyond its borders if it wants to be commercially successful. China is doing it via investment because they have plenty of money and are buying up resources etc around the world. Russia needs to do something similar... make their presence in the market known... for most countries around the world all they know is the west and part of what they know is having to change their local laws so western companies can strip mine the country, or use it as a cheap labour supply with expendable workers that get replaced when damaged or start asking for more money...
3) The US has been using its aircraft carriers as 3rd world colonial enforcement. The cheesy Hollywood
movies about space colonial marines highlights this aspect of US military "prowess".
That is true... and if the Russian Navy made it clear that is what it wanted them for then I would totally agree with you... but they don't.
The Russian surface ships have excellent IADS, but it lacks an airforce to add depth and extend range of vision reliably... they also carry a lot of helicopters which can be useful against subs too.
Since Russia is not planning to terrorize developing countries, it does not need aircraft carriers. I have not seen
a serious case made for them. And the fact that "journalists" and pundits keep raising the wave the flag
argument demonstrates any lack of substance.
Nobody needs aircraft carriers... the British could have retaken the Falkland Islands without aircraft carriers, but they would have lost 10 times more ships that would have cost them 3-4 times more than the Ark Royal cost them...
Russian carriers are not strike carriers to bomb countries, they are CAP and AWACS platforms to keep Russian surface action groups safe away from Russian airspace.
Isn't it curious how stubborn this discussion is? The only point that I would really love people to understand is that air power in the naval domain is as important as for land based forces.
It is ironic... KVS is the last one I would think would be taken in by western propaganda, but it seems to him a full sized fixed wing aircraft carrier is a weapon of colonialism and has no other practical use... because that is what the only user of full sized fixed wing aircraft carriers uses them for... ie the US.
Nobody in its right mind would defend armed forces to do without air power on land, but interestingly some people automatically reject the notion of Russia having aircraft carriers, which is the only way to guarantee access to air power far from Russia. Interestingly, this concern about proper budget use applies only to Russia while the rest of small and big powers in this world keep planning and building carriers without any significant questioning.
Indeed, they are now building 8 Yasen and 4 (soon 6) Borei, + Belgorod & Khavarovsk, plus all the 636.3 and 677. Nobody is denying the importance of subs in the VMF, but interestingly the security of those is in question precisely because there aren't enough surface groups to ensure NATO ASW forces stay far enough from them. This is actually a major concern for SSBN forces in the North Fleet, I am not making this up.
Exactly. A good surface fleet present in the relevant hot spots at the right time is the best and cheapest remedy against wars and interference.
Yeah, the first step of renewed Russian blue water fleet with deterring potential depends on the Nakhimov and Tsirkon combo. They will manage with those two until the 22350M and eventually the Lider appear, but in the medium term a couple of CVNs is needed.
They are not going to get a two CVN and the Kuznetsov CV fleet any time soon... the CV will be back in the water about 2025 and so will the two Kirovs hopefully, and perhaps a Slava or two might be ready then with the two or three others going in for an upgrade straight afterwards. That is about 6 cruisers, and upgrades to the Udaloy should start producing some destroyers too, but once Frigates and Corvettes are in full production the scaled up Frigate in the form of perhaps the first few light destroyers with perhaps a heavier better armed model being produced after that followed by cruisers to start replacing the upgraded old ones... by 2027 or so they might want to lay down the first new CVN... though making two at once might be cheaper too... Either way they wont have three CV(N)s before about 2036 or so... and spread over that sort of period the costs wont be that bad.
Don't scrimp on the planes though... Su-57 or the new light MiGs.... no screwy VSTOLs...
The planes are the edge of the sword... use cheap crappy steel and it wont stay sharp for long enough to keep you alive.
But what the article says about carrier being only useful to attack unsophisticated nations is somewhat true.
Wrong. To get around the worlds oceans, Russian ships... both military and commercial, have to move through dangerous waters... whether it is because pirates attack ships, or because the UK or France or the US think it is their backyard and you can stay out... despite it being international waters.
The Carriers purpose is to keep surface ships and subs safe... any invasion would require the Ivan Rogov landing craft and lots of cruise missiles.... the aircraft from the carrier wont be bombing much... more likely shooting down enemy aircraft and keeping the ships safe from attack.
Do you think the UK could have built an empire without its Navy? Do you think anyone would listen to the US if they didn't put a carrier nearby?
Who is going to trade with Russia if she can't send any ships to help when the US funded coup starts a war?
Russian carriers in a direct confrontation with NATO or China would be just about useful as US carriers...i.e future reefs. It only may work in proxy wars of strategic importance.
Russian carriers could create an air bubble of defence over Russian surface ships and subs... Russian carriers will likely carry the naval equivalent of the S-500 when it is ready... but everyone still loses, so in that sense it wont make much of a difference.
The fact is, when a Russian ship heads out into the ocean, its is backed by the premise of "do you dare to risk war with Russia?"If the USN sinks the Russian surface fleet, Russia has hundreds of options to retaliate without going nuclear.
And what if the Ukraine sells a batch of Neptune missiles to the Kurds or ISIS or some other group that does not give a shit about Russia for use against Russian ships. The old Kh-35 is not a new weapon but it is not a bad weapon either... Somali pirates took Russian flagged ships.
BTW the "you dare risk war with Russia" means fuck all if you live in central or south America or Africa and you know Russia only has subs and Corvettes and Frigates so they wont come here for long...
But lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say after having a ship hijacked they send a frigate to take it back... that frigate is going to be very vulnerable to almost any sort of air threat from missiles to planes and subs...
Or they can nuke US bases that are not on the US mainland and based in nations that have no nukes. Sink US shipping, mine US ports, attack US investments abroad etc etc. War with Russia is just not feasible. The US is in the process of surrendering to the Taliban, I think they know they cannot handle Russia.
Yeah... war against Russia wont happen because Russia has nukes... tell that to the dead VDV soldiers in their base in South Ossetia, and in Syria I guess ISIS does not fire at Russian troops because Russia will nuke them... didn't the Soviets have nukes when they had troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s?
Nukes are a blunt instrument that really need a serious reason to use... you can't just use them because HATO has moved troops to your border and has big exercises every year to practise invading you.
Russia would need destroyers before they can even think of building CV's, we are decades away from seeing a CV laid down.
Half agree... they will likely be laying down destroyers in the next 5 years and in 8-10 years will have started laying down at least one CVN IMHO.
If Russia were to build a carrier fleet, how many would it build? 2? 3? The way the US approaches it is that they build at a rate to maintain the economics and supply chain. It takes 5-7 years to build one, and they last 50 years = fleet size approx.
I would think one per fleet for the Northern and Pacific fleet would be a start, with the Kuznetsov as a training ship probably based in the Pacific.
They would each have 2-3 cruisers to operate with them... a Kirov and two Slavas and then three new Cruisers, plus a few destroyers each... the new Russian CVNs will have Redut and UKSK-M and S-500... it wont be a conventional carrier like the Nimitz Ford... it will manage the air defence of the surface group...
I honestly don't think they would need more than that unless they have a problem and want to retire the K early and build an extra CVN so no matter what upgrades and servicing happens they will have at least one carrier available and most often two for operational use.
4 would be the ideal number, two for each major fleet one active and the other in overhaul for rotation.
Four would provide more reliable coverage, but I think they could get away with three... most situations they wont need more than one if they are 90K ton carriers.
[qutoe]Russia doesn't really need tons of carriers, the reason the US favors them is because of our location on the world stage.[/quote]
The US wants a finger in every pie so they need lots of carriers located around the world so no matter where the problem is they can get at least a carrier group there in a few hours. Russia doesn't have or need that... remember in addition to the 10-12 full sized carriers they also have marine carriers in significant numbers too... Russia would be economically crushed trying to match that and they don't have the bases around the world to make it work to their advantage anyway.
[Geoprahics heavily affect the size of your fleet and what you need
The mentality comes in to it as well... Russia just wants free trade and access to the whole world... while the US wants to control the world by dominating the sea lanes of trade and communication.
I don't think that was a good example. Firstly there was probably a group within Turkish AF that was anti Erdogan, pro CIA. I am sure Erdogan explained to Putin it was against his orders as well.
That would be tricky when Erdogan went on TV when it happened and claimed it was his plan.
After the US fucked up their attempt to remove him from power he probably said to Putin.... what a mistake I have made... lets improve relations... what concessions would you like in Syria... can I buy more gas from you... can I buy S-400s too.
[quoteMilitary power does not preclude sanctions. The US has a ginormous Navy yet they announce sanctions every 5 minutes that hurt US commercial interests quite often. They also get hit by terror attacks quite frequently. Military power is limited. Many groups are simply not intemidated by it. So when you have the massive power of the US, and you are so hesitant to use it and cannot even defeat the Taliban, it becomes a huge joke.[/quote]
You forget that military power is both a hard and a soft power.
The US has barely fired a shot at North Korea and Cuba but look at how isolated they are... Iran and Venezuela have been largely ostracised by the west... ironically while the EU seems to continue to support Iran and the deal the EU countries are pulling out of contracts with Iran for fear of sanctions from the US... which means while the EU seems to be friends with Iran in actual fact they are worse than the US... at least the US is honest that it is putting sanctions on Iran... the EU is pretending to be investing in Iran but it is not yet it still expects Iran to follow its part of the deal to the letter.... it was supposed to be Iran stops with the nukes and the parties that signed the deal invest in Iran, well the US and EU are not investing but are both demanding Iran follows the deal anyway...
Even without a russian military answer they know russia could equip with nuks Iran or Venezuela or any other country that would be happy to use it against them.
Russia does not want Iran or Venezuela to have nukes any more than the west does... but I understand what you mean.
The problem is that the US will overthrow governments and send entire countries into war and anarchy... Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Belarus?
Saying they wont attack a Russian ship... not an armed one, but they kidnapped Russian nationals and absconded them to the US for trial on BS charges because they wouldn't cooperate in some dastardly plan to destroy Putin.
But Russia is also facing the same issue as US. Smaller countries that want to play a bigger role like Turkey or Saudi Arabia who started all the mess in their ally country (Syria). And for that they need a powerfull navy. And you can't do everything with cruise missiles and subs. A carrier is needed at some point if you want to be there for a long time.
Just to allow Russian companies to freely trade with any other country on the planet they need to be able to use the sea and as was shown in Kosovo and in Georgia... the US will bend international opinion to the view that no matter what the facts... Russia is to blame... so while boarding and taking over a ship in international waters is a crime... it will be OK if it is a Russian ship... we can make up all sorts of bullshit stories about what they are carrying to justify anything we like. Russia needs to be able to assert her interests anywhere at sea and there is ample evidence she can't rely on the US or British or French navy to do it for her or help in any way except help make it worse.
Russia couldnt even finish the ships they started building during the USSR, they sold two of them to China.
They had no use for them... and it wasn't Russia because they weren't in Russian shipyards.
Russia had lots of ships it didn't need... it sold a few ships to China, and I am sure China learned a few things from them too.
They couldnt even finish some simple frigates for over 10 years.
They had other priorities.
So no they couldnt build destroyers in large numbers, not even old Udaloys and Sovremennys. Heck they even have problems keeping the few they have in working order.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but lets compare China from the time of the USSR to now... no change at all?
Like Russia, but on a smaller scale, France has widely separated fleets; she also has possessions in S. America, Caribbean & all the oceans except the Arctic. The Gr. Britain also has possessions in all the oceans except the Arctic. Nevertheless, both have no need for more than 1-2 CV/Ns to protect their trade, show the flag & bomb developing countries.
India will have 2-3 carriers but her subcontinent is vulnerable, with mountains/deserts on the north/west dominated by China & Pakistan.
Even if India & her allies block the Malacca strait, Chinese & Pakistani subs will still be in the Indian Ocean, just like the VMF subs in the Med. Sea.
OTH, Russia dominates Eurasia & doesn't need to waste $ on more than 1-2 CVNs & their escorts.
I am sorry, but this is very frustrating. I am suggesting Russia should have aircraft carriers to protect her surface ships and submarines when operating beyond the land based air power she has developed to defend her land borders and some people just read beep beep beep Russia needs 150K ton carriers just like the Ford class but even bigger and they need 20 of them and they need them a week next tuesday... beep beep beep. Because they can defeat the US and HATO if they have bigger aircraft carriers becuase Russia has always based its defence against foreign enemies with its air power fixation.... don't believe EU lies it was air power that stopped Napoleon in his tracks... he never made it to Moscow... that was actually just the party afterwards that did that damage... you know how Ruskies can drink...