The unit price ratio between the two ships is about 1:60 not 1:70, anyway i understand perfectly that this example could appear simplicistic or even absurd; in reality i obviously do not advocate the procurement of 60 FREMM frigates for the financiary resources that US Navy allocate for the procurement of a single Ford class with its air wing complement
It ignores the facts of reality that bigger ships are often better equipped and protected than smaller ones.
For the price of one Cold War Kirov class cruiser you could probably buy hundreds of Corvettes... which on paper would be even better equipped... those corvettes could carry four Granits each so five corvettes have the same anti ship fire power as a Kirov for a fraction of the price and it would take a guaranteed five missiles to sink five corvettes whereas maybe three missiles would take a Kirov out of action and limping back to base fighting to not sink...
But honestly that might be economically true but how many T-26 tanks would it take to overwhelm a single Panther.... if the Panther crew resorted to simply ramming them they can keep destroying them after they run out of ammo... the T-26s might get a lucky shot and take out a track or jam the turret or damage the gun, but I think we would all agree the extra cost of building a bigger better tank is worth it most of the time.
Again, I am not advocating big for the sake of big... they don't need 150K ton carriers and 40K ton Cruisers and 20K ton Super Destroyers... and I really don't think fitting them with thousands of missile tubes is a good idea either... they need to be balanced sensible designs that are used in large groups when more missiles are needed.
With land based artillery you don't make it more powerful by fitting more guns... if you need more fire power get extra vehicles and use them in larger numbers... same result with out big heavy unwieldy bohemouths that are terrible to operate and transport because they are so heavy and bulky they don't fit in anything...
This power projection capability would be impossible to exert against enemies employing theirs resources in ways much more efficient for a peer-level conflicts and just this awareness has generated among US Navy's admirals in the latest years the idea of "distributed lethality".
Against Russia their game doesn't work any more but against most of the countries of the world it still would except perhaps China.
Russia has no interest in playing their games and the benefits of air cover are clear in any potential conflict whether it is against Fiji or all of HATO.
Obviously against all of HATO a Russian surface fleet will struggle but the use of hypersonic anti ship missiles and the addition of air power would put them in a much better position to survive and do some damage than they would without air support.
Again it is not so they can fight WWIII that is pointless because the result would not matter either way, but for operations away from Russian support it effectively extends Russias air power reach around the planet to anywhere it is needed.
The point would remain the sea control capability exerted by a single Ford Class carrier with its air wing complement wouln't come even only near to that of 38 FFGX (even employng those tax payer's moneys in a so inefficient way) and wouldn't never be capable to confront in any condition a similar enemy at sea constructed with the same resources.
But those FFGXs would be rather more vulnerable to attack without CAP and air cover than if they were on their own.
That carrier air wing will surely still shine in employing JDAMs and Paveway LGBs against insulated third world enemies with beginning of '60 years AD systems, but would be literally obliterated against an peer enemy employing even a fraction of the resources in a less outdated way.
A Russian air wing with Su-57 would probably do rather well against most current and near future enemies including near peers... especially when they will mainly used to provide air cover for the ships and subs within the group.
it can be done fast with mini-UAV atop a missile- once a target of interest is detected by ship's radar, fire it into its vicinity, separate from it, & investigate it. Tilt-rotor AWACS & MPA been mentioned already. High speed attack/SAR helos may also be used. There r more than 1 way to do things.
There are but spending 10 billion dollars developing tilt rotor technology AWACS would probably cost about the same as the cost to build to CVNs and yet offer rather less performance and value.
Tu-95/142/160s can attack more air bases,etc. with their standoff weapons, creating a huge safety bubble around VMF SAG.
The Vulcan struck an airfield on the Falklands Islands miles away from Argentina and miles away from their fighters and air defences.
To protect the British ships from attack they would have to attack all the dozens of air fields on the Argentine mainland including civilian air fields... and no strategic bomber would last long repeatedly bombing those operating from an air base 10,000km away.
because Venezuela has land borders to circumvent a hypothetical US naval blockade.
They could simply say that any country that accepts goods to bypass the Blockade will be subject to the same sanctions and blockade that Venezuela is... those borders will close... not out of friendship to the US but fear.
in a tit for tat.
When have they ever done that?
no1 country can control the entire planet.
Tell that to Pompous and Trump.
all passenger planes must periodically check in with their controllers, even over the open ocean. The VMF will have no reason to hide & will be warning them to stay away at short intervals, in English.
Old subs can be converted to carry them as well.
Most old subs are small and sleak and designed to be quiet... their capacity for cargo would be pathetic.
Then, USN ships, subs & planes will be put in reserve, scrapped, or sold to the highest bidder.
Or used to attack and lash out in the hopes of starting a war they can profit from... China and Japan own about a billion dollars in US debt... start a war with both those countries and start the war by declaring the debt void they are not going to pay it back and instantly saved two billion dollars. There are countries they could invade to steal their money.
They could simply declare all the US held gold from international countries to be American property... the UK already did that with Venezuelan gold.
tankers will be convertible to cargo planes;
Which is fine if they had a use for them, but with no navy to support global trade alliances they would spend most of their time on the ground doing nothing...
MiG-31/Su-30/57s have enough range already.
No they don't. None of those three planes could reach anywhere near the middle of the Pacific let alone anywhere they would be needed.
Recently PLAAF flew tanker assisted 10hr mission on Su-30s in the SC Sea from the mainland- the Su-34 has more cabin space & its crew can fly for 20hrs with more refuelings.
What sort of payload were they carrying and would it be enough to fight off an entire air force and defend themselves and the inflight refuelling planes that were supporting them?
they'll have oil platforms with helo decks that can be used by the CG/military. A few converted big tankers joined at anchor in shallow waters will create a cheap mobile base. They can also be towed by NP icebreakers, making them de-facto CVNs, with $Bs saved on their construction, maintenace & use.
In the 21 century, these "ice plows" can be converted to swords & these same swords can be converted to "ice plows" again.
You do know much of northern Russia is inside the arctic circle so they can build airfields and bases on land...
Syria was dredged up as an example of why Russian needs these dinosaurs. But clearly Russia did not need them in Syria and
this applies to most of Russia's security regions of interest which includes the Middle East and Asia.
If the terrorists had been better equipped with TOWs and Stingers having land based airfields and air power might not have been so easy... and the conflict in Syria proved that air power made a significant contribution to the result... particularly bombers with dumb bomb hitting point targets but keeping the costs down.
We have the USA sending a carrier task groups to North Korea and not actually getting there. So that would be a fail.
The US is also making light 5th gen fighters so I assume using your logic that the new twin engined MiG light 5th gen fighter will cost 1.5 trillion and be a total dog too...
Where do the advocates for the white elephants known as carriers see Russia actually using them? In Latin American, African,
and Indonesian waters? This really is a show stopper question. Hypothetical needs are not a valid argument. Russia has
no policing objectives in parts of the world where carriers could be worth something. It also has no plans for running colonies
in those regions.
Let me ask you what are they wasting time upgrading the Kuznetsov and the Kirov class cruisers and the Slava class Cruisers... what would they possibly use them for?
They have landing ships building right now, so there are going to be some 20K+ Russian ships... that simply can't be helped now because they will need destroyers and cruisers and carriers to operate with them.
They have the Kuznetsov... which colony has it been used to maintain in the last 30 years?
[qutoe]Yes, Russia is like a hermit kingdom and that is a good thing for Russia and the world. It is not trying to replace the Anglo
imperialists and carriers have no value against those targets. Latin America and Africa have to liberate themselves before
Russia can help them. There is no scenario in which Russia will install bootlick regimes in those regions.[/quote]
Those countries have the potential to grow and develop just like Russia is trying to and the West is doing its damn best to stop it all... they hate Russia and China because they are both developing and growing and risk taking other countries with them on a development and growth path that the west does not control.
The west will not sit there and do nothing... we have already seen they will take action to ruin or damage anything they can... Brazil puts the B in BRICS and strangely a Trump like leader wins and pulls back from Brazils BRICS commitments... accident?
Venezuela reaches out to Russia and China for help with development they never get from the west because it is not in the interests of the west for them to ascend to the big boy table so they keep them down... and all of a sudden US attention is on Venezuela and there are coup attempts and kidnapping attempts... just watching from the sidelines how many other government in central and south america or africa want to be regime changed by the US for improving ties with Russia to grow and develop as a country.
Russia is not the worlds policeman and I am not suggesting they buy the 10-12 CVNs they would need to take on that role, but they do need a world wide presence and they can only get that with ships, so they need destroyers and cruisers... smaller ships don't have the endurance or level of self protection to operate for long periods away from base, so if you are going to build destroyers and cruisers you will need a certain number of them for them to be useful and available in numbers to be useful. Using the existing CV and adding in time perhaps a couple of CVNs makes the investment in those big ships safer because they are much better protected and safer from potential hostile forces.
Since the utility of the US carriers is in clear decline, why would Russia invest in them. To prove it is a power?
It is not about proving anything... it is about being able to go where they need to and to be safe and secure when they get there.
Russian soldiers in Syria didn't just go with assault rifles and pistols... they took an enormous range of all sorts of weapons and equipment, much of which is secret... but it keeps those soldiers safe while they do their job.
If you had asked me in the mid 1990s where Russian soldiers would be deployed I never would have thought of Syria and to be honest I was worried when they did go in to Syria because Putin has avoided sending in the troops to lots of places despite being asked.
They had the right gear and used it well... you could say the shootdown of the Su-24 was a mistake and Putin underestimated the Saakashvili in Erdogan... and it cost a plane and people, but overall considering it is a real war with terrorists supported with the best equipment super powers can provide without exposing themselves for the hipocrites they are... it has gone rather better than I expected and I suspect a lot of nutters are now dead that would have been heading back to Russia after Assad was gone and causing trouble there... so job well done.
This one isn't a dinoraurs. No catapult, no expensive design. 40 kt. 32 mig-29k. Only cheap pantsir for protection with why not 4x12 shtil. No UKSK. No expensive AESA radars. Cost will be almost the same as the heli carrier they are making. Propulsion could be 2 borei's nuks reactors but increase cost.
Can provide air support for the fleet during high sea deployment, radar coverage to detect any ship at more than 1000km away, support land operations, support landings, use as a deterrance with some kh-59mk2 on board and patrol high tension areas like Mediteranean right now. They also have the Kuznetsov so 1 for northern fleet and one for pacific fleet.
Drawback is the lack of real AWACS but that can be solved with some light jet (sukhoi su-80) with AESA pannels on the fusalage.
Personally I'm not a big fan of the 100kt Shtorm which is a fantasy or the 70kt Lamantin which is way too big. Carrier are not meant for WW3.
Well that is another point... we seem to have worked out that the Redut system with 12 launch tubes should be able to carry either 48 9M96 missiles (of the 60km or 150km range variety) or 192 9M100 short range anti missile missiles... so the potential to make a carrier a heavily protected vessel is pretty easy really... Pantsirs at each corner and a Redut launcher in each corner means 160 Pantsir missiles (8 missiles on the mount and 32 reloads below deck for 40 missiles each mount) plus 768 short range IIR guided missiles like SEA RAM but much better... or a combination of short range missiles and medium and long range missiles with four 12 tube launchers and four deck mounted AA systems... perhaps 6 Duet guns for filling the gaps.... plus an air compliment of 50-60 Su-57s.
Instead of EMAL cats they could use an Airship based AWACS that operates at 40K metres and is unmanned... like thunderbird 5 but inside the atmosphere... it could go up and down and use the trade winds to move really fast if need be and could have radar antennas hundreds of metres long... a laser datalink that you would have to get between the sender and receiver to intercept...
there is no reason a Russian aircraft carrier needs to cost anything like a Ford class... all it needs to do is provide airborne radar and fighter combat air patrol... a few dozen helicopters that could be used for anti sub roles is just a bonus.