I would say the Russian navy is for both the economy and WWIII.
The Russian Navy will be of zero value during WWIII... Russia is developing doomsday devices like Posiedon and the unlimited flight range nuclear armed cruise missile... which by the way they could get away with bypassing the US demanding it being included in the strategic weapons and therefore limited by new START right now and any future agreements by fitting it with retractable undercarriage and giving it multiple nuclear warheads that can be dropped in flight and call it a UCAV which are not regulated...
The Russian Navy would be recalled back to home ports in times of serious tension and would try to patrol potential launch areas looking for HATO SSBNs, but it wont be prowling the worlds oceans... its fire power and capabilities would be best used destroying anything approaching Russia... any US carrier groups will be dealt with using MiG-31 and later MiG-41 launched missiles of increasing speed and range... and their land based land launched equivalents.
Well finally someone who else can see this, I was getting rather sick of hearing retarded nonsense such as "they should build LHDs with VTOL fighters" and "missiles cruisers are a waste of money".
They need a balanced force, with Frigates and Corvettes that can operate from home ports and provide close in security for Russia under the air umbrella that ground based aircraft can provide, but they also need larger ships with the endurance to go places and remain there for months, and those groups of ships warrant an aircraft carrier to provide vision and reach so they can't be surprise attacked, and can defend themselves from reasonably powerful enemies.
Russia doesn't have a huge navy, but they do have very good submarines and missiles that will sink any type of ship... Having aircraft means they get the warning of attacks in time to use their missiles to defend themselves and also attack the sources of those attacks.
Israel attacks Syria with standoff weapons because only the standoff weapons are in danger... so there is nothing to lose and everything to gain if one slips through and you get lucky. If they were hitting Russian targets then Russia could simply start shooting down the Israeli aircraft and after losing a few they would either escalate or stop... and I rather suspect stop would be their choice.
My point was more about how much better a Russian carrier would be due to the equipment available to the Russian navy.
Personally I think they should look at making the carrier rather bigger than they need... That multi hull carrier they were talking about that was very wide is actually rather good for a carrier because it means wider deck and bigger internal volume for hangars and stores... even a CVN has to carry thousands of tons of aviation fuel for its aircraft to operate... if they could make a 60K ton multi hull carrier with the capacity of a 90K ton conventional carrier that could carry 96 fighters and say 8 AWACS type aircraft (including both ones fitted with radar and ones fitted out for inflight refuelling or cargo transport) and say 30 helicopters... that would be ideal... but in normal operations they might only carry say 32 fighters and 3 AWACS planes with 2 Inflight refuelling planes as well, and maybe 12-16 helicopters, but full fuel and weapons and provisions. That would mean a normal endurance of say 90 days of operations could be expanded to perhaps 160 days of operations, but if needed you could put extra fighters and helicopters onto a transport ship and ship them to where ever they are needed.
I would think a Russian CVN would not be the same as a US one because the Russian model will likely have S-500 and S-400 and S-350 missiles and also UKSK-M launchers with anti sub missiles at the very least and probably also a few long range land attack cruise missiles too.
The Kalibr land attack missiles they currently use are 6m long and 533mm calibre so they can be launched from torpedo tubes, but even the UKSK launch tubes can take 750mm weapons that are 10m long so they could take missiles bigger than the Kh-101 which have a range of 5,000km which are only 7.4m long and have a body diameter of 750mm. So adding 2.6m to its length would add a huge space for extra fuel if necessary...
Of course, and US backtracking in their early narrative of such planes doing the work solo inside advanced IADS is the proof. The appearance of Konteiner type radars in RF that can track thousands of so called stealth targets already when they are heading down the runway as far as the Netherlands (and soon enough monitor the western approaches to Europe including the GIUK gap) means game, set and match for Russia in the event of an air conflict with NATO in the European theatre. Current generation of stealth technology is inconsequential to such kind of radars.
It is not the first backtrack either... I remember in the 1980s one of the roles for the B-1B was going to be flying around deep in Soviet airspace destroying their truck mounted ICBM launchers at very low altitude... but they pretty soon realised it was hopeless after Desert Storm... the B-2 was on its way and the plans were that its stealth meant it could fly over the Soviet Union invisible to Soviet air defences and just fly around bombing targets with impunity so they were pretending the B-1B was going to do it but when the B-2 was revealed they admitted that the B-1B simply didn't have the flight range to fly around the Soviet Union at low altitude and that the B-2 was going to do it.... but the Scud ruined all their plans. They didn't destroy a single Scud missile on its launcher before launch during the entire campaign even though Iraq is much smaller than Russia and they essentially had complete air control and nothing was interfering with their satellites they still couldn't track the Scud launchers before they fired with air power... There were all sorts of claims of AWACS and JSTARS tracking them and killing them with long range bombers but it simply didn't work.... so the TOPOL killer idea for a use for the B-2 disappeared from their brochures pretty quickly...
hangars, fuel/ammo storage & barracks can be hit- the # of planes destroyed there &/ denied shelter/maintenance, fuel & ammo. won't be trivial.
They are spending 200 billion pounds on Trident and you think they should use them to destroy a dozen planes on the ground?
They could probably put a few Concords back into service and use them to deliver post to the troops in Afghanistan... it will only cost a similar amount to upgrade airfields in Afghanistan and put the Concords back into fight safe configuration...
occasionally, but not routinely.
The places you mention would put them face to face with HATO or Japan.... further afield like Venezuela or Cuba for exercises would be much more valuable practise... landing forces can learn about sea voyages in books but it is something else to experience it... there were problems with sea sickness in the D Day landings... over very short distances... imagine trying to mount an operation to the Falkland Islands...
2ndary missions to protect the fleet could be performed by them as well.
Protect the fleet how? They have no capacity to shoot down enemy aircraft, and have no business trying to sink ships.... the Russian Navy has subs and ships with the weapons to do that better than the Russian Strategic component of the Air Force...
if they can accommodate fully loaded IL-76s, AN-12/22s, C-130/5/17s,
All those planes are able to land on semi prepared airstrips except the C-5 and none of them operate at anything like their max weights.... very heavy equipment sent to Antarctica goes by ship.
why can't they handle Tu-22/95/142/160s & IL-78s?
They should be able to handle Il-78s, but those other aircraft require concrete runways 3km to 5km long when operating at max weight.
They would also be very little use to a group of ships under attack.
the WWIII is already underway, & it won't evolve into WWII style total war of attrition with even 1/2, much less full, nuke exchanges.
Well if you are thinking in those terms the Cold War would be WWIII and that now they are on to WWIV... the second Cold War which is all about money and resources rather than ideology.
Besides, the anti-war movements that helped to end the war in Vietnam will prevent the repeat of another US led major war in Asia or Europe, much less the ME- recent anti-police brutality & racism protests, violence, looting & riots already showed how deeply the gov. is divided by political infighting.
But those riots are about internal problems of racism and police brutality and ignorance... most Americans support foreign wars and could not care less about the suffering it causes... as long as oil is cheap.
The anti war groups used to be the democrats but now the democrats are the Clintons and the Bidens and they want war as much as the Republicans do...
by that logic, China shouldn't have bothered with CV-16/17 STOBARs & saved $ for CVNs, & Russia can save $ by not keeping the Adm. K.
China is not in the same position as Russia... they want landing ships to recover Taiwan and to perhaps protect Hong Kong and the islands they build in the South China Sea. They can operate under the protection of land based aircraft and will enable rapid resupply and support for any troops on those islands, while allowing the landing of more troops faster in a conflict in Taiwan which will increase their chances of doing it right.
The Admiral K is big enough to be useful, and there is no point in selling it because the money they would get for it would not be significant and would not replace the value the ship provides even in an unupgraded form. With upgrades it will be rather more use to them...
Before trying to make sushi, 1 must learn how to properly cook rice & cut the fish, not to mention any other ingredients that must go there.
That is true, but you want bigger more flexible ships that can grow with your navy and expand its capabilities, not something they will use to get some experience but then outgrow and discard in time.
not only- the Yak-38s were to keep P-3s & other planes away from their subs & ships, besides hitting shore targets.
The Yak-38s had no radar and at best were armed with 7km range R-60MK AAMs for air to air.... its performance in the air was pathetic... in the air to ground role it was not a huge amount better with unguided rockets and light bombs... they were tested in Afghanistan against ground targets and were terrible... the engine wear for all three engines was magnified by dust ingestion and they were slow easy unarmoured targets that really didn't hit their ground targets very often.
incl. for EW, reducing the need for AWACS.
A Drone AWACS platform would be a useful thing... that could be made to operate from small ships and make them safer by detecting low flying threats.
which can be navalized as the MiG-29 was, & used on small carriers in sufficient #s.
I suspect that will be the plan.
Actually I was thinking... one of the main reasons the F-35 is a dog is because it is a fighter plane based on the F-16.
The F-16 is a narrow fighter with a single engine and with good shaping it is agile and a capable fighter for its time... much like the MiG-21 before it.
The thing is that needing a large lift fan means the F-35 is fatter than it should be but that extra width increases drag like the extra engine of the MiG-29 but it does not get the added benefit of an extra engine and body lift like the MiG-29 does.
The core problem with the Yak-141 is the three engines it needs to operate as a VSTOL... unlike a normal multi engined fighter, this actually detracts from safety because it triples the chance of an engine surge or failure so rather than making it more safe it actually makes it less safe.
The Yak idea of an engine driven fan lift engine is clever because it means cold air is being blown down under the front of the aircraft instead of hot air with some of the oxygen removed like the twin lift jets on the 141.... it means if that air goes in the front air intakes the engine wont stall on the hot oxygen depleted air, and it means less heat damage to the underneath of the aircraft and the runway.
Having a twin jet engine aircraft powering a lift fan with full 90 degrees TVC engine nozzles and with the front fan able to move say 30 degrees in any direction could eliminate the need for puffer jets at the wingtips and the tail and the nose of the aircraft... greatly simplifying the internal design, and making it less vulnerable to battle damage and breaks.
Having a wider front fuselage is not a problem for a MiG-35 or Su-57 type aircraft shape... which means it could remain stealthy...
The real problem that at the end of the day it is just more complication for an ability it might never actually need... simpler TVC with two engines and a large wing area means it should be able to get airborne fairly easily... new construction designs to make the structure lighter but stronger and new materials and new engines... they were talking about two 11 ton thrust engines in a plane that might have a dry weight of perhaps 10 tons... it really doesn't need a lift fan...