Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

The Yak-141 was never an operational aircraft, and was never anything more than a prototype... it never had functional avionics or even radar or systems, and its operational payload was likely going to be mounted on four wing pylons only... and most of the time would be two R-77s and two R-73s and a single 30mm cannon.

Current MiG-29KR has better payload and better range and better speed and is an actual aircraft and would be cheaper to operate and maintain.

Or just do the logical and cost effective thing and use F-35

The F-35 is nothing like cost effective... it is the opposite... vastly more expensive while not being more capable than all sorts of alternatives...

In fact it would be cheaper for them to invest in developing EMALS systems to launch conventional fighters because at least the technology will be useful.

They get no advantage from owning F-35s because they would get no access to any of the technology at all.

Saves loads of money and decades of time, whatever they make will be inferior to F-35 they can barely build trainer jets

Except trainer jets could be fitted with AESA radars and modern AAMs and be superior to F-35s.

And why would they want to get rid of US fighters? They have been dominating the Norks for decades thanks to them

The conflict between north and south korea continues because the US wants military bases in South Korea and Japan and Australia to keep forces close to China... it was always about China.

Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.

Money invested in their own economy, but requires talent and very specific skills that are not that much use for anything else... so once it is designed and built what are they going to do? Move to US and fix F-35s problems?

Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

South Korea are not like other US vassals... they can spend their own money and buy what they like if they really wanted to. They could order Su-35s if they wanted or something newer that isn't fundamentally broken...

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane.

Oh please... Rafales cost more than that... I mean I realise the French really screwed the Indians, but the US are not nice either... 100 F-35s at probably 200 million each (with parts and support) will cost 20 billion at the very least and that is being super generous.

Making your own parts does not make planes cheaper... it actually makes them more expensive... but it means you make money when others order planes...

if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2).

Which on its own proves your estimate of 10 billion for 100 F-35s is bullshit.

The Japs make expensive American hardware even more expensive...

This thread is in the Russian Navy section and is for discussions about the Ivan Rogov Assault Ship class... F-35s are totally irrelevant to such a thread.

GarryB wrote:

Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

The Yak-141 was never an operational aircraft, and was never anything more than a prototype... it never had functional avionics or even radar or systems, and its operational payload was likely going to be mounted on four wing pylons only... and most of the time would be two R-77s and two R-73s and a single 30mm cannon.

Current MiG-29KR has better payload and better range and better speed and is an actual aircraft and would be cheaper to operate and maintain.

Or just do the logical and cost effective thing and use F-35

The F-35 is nothing like cost effective... it is the opposite... vastly more expensive while not being more capable than all sorts of alternatives...

In fact it would be cheaper for them to invest in developing EMALS systems to launch conventional fighters because at least the technology will be useful.

They get no advantage from owning F-35s because they would get no access to any of the technology at all.

Saves loads of money and decades of time, whatever they make will be inferior to F-35 they can barely build trainer jets

Except trainer jets could be fitted with AESA radars and modern AAMs and be superior to F-35s.

And why would they want to get rid of US fighters? They have been dominating the Norks for decades thanks to them

The conflict between north and south korea continues because the US wants military bases in South Korea and Japan and Australia to keep forces close to China... it was always about China.

Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.

Money invested in their own economy, but requires talent and very specific skills that are not that much use for anything else... so once it is designed and built what are they going to do? Move to US and fix F-35s problems?

Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

South Korea are not like other US vassals... they can spend their own money and buy what they like if they really wanted to. They could order Su-35s if they wanted or something newer that isn't fundamentally broken...

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane.

Oh please... Rafales cost more than that... I mean I realise the French really screwed the Indians, but the US are not nice either... 100 F-35s at probably 200 million each (with parts and support) will cost 20 billion at the very least and that is being super generous.

Making your own parts does not make planes cheaper... it actually makes them more expensive... but it means you make money when others order planes...

if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2).

Which on its own proves your estimate of 10 billion for 100 F-35s is bullshit.

The Japs make expensive American hardware even more expensive...

This thread is in the Russian Navy section and is for discussions about the Ivan Rogov Assault Ship class... F-35s are totally irrelevant to such a thread.

These are just flyaway costs, who knows what the indian deal included. When Russia orders planes from Sukhoi they probably also quote flyaway costs as support is done by VKS staff and parts are not budgeted at time of purchase. If you look at Canada full lifetime op costs for about 70 F-35 its about 100B that is probably quite close to a total cost but cheap does not exist in this game.

GarryB wrote:The F-35 is nothing like cost effective... it is the opposite... vastly more expensive while not being more capable than all sorts of alternatives......

What alternatives?

Is there some other VTOL fighter jet on the market that I haven't heard about?

GarryB wrote:South Korea are not like other US vassals... they can spend their own money and buy what they like if they really wanted to. They could order Su-35s if they wanted or something newer that isn't fundamentally broken......

Su-35 can't operate even from a supercarrier let alone this small one that Koreans are building

Only reason Koreans are even making this ship is because there is VTOL jet available for purchase

Without it there wouldn't be any Korean carrier program (or Japanese or Turkish)

Plus the money is spent in your own country on domestic materials, goods and services so generates jobs and contributes back into the taxation base. Keep it up and you build your local manufacturing base and local expertise, and can protect yourself from the risks of foreign pressure. Buying foreign gear means that the money departs and never returns.

To a degree yes, but beware the trap... we are talking about naval carrier based planes so they will never need more than maybe 150 planes at the very best, which means making your own is actually hard to justify unless you have customers for another 3,000 of them you can make for them. The problem is that those other countries will want to make their own and not let you make them for all the same reasons you wanted to make them, so 10 countries buying 50 aircraft each all spend way too much money setting up production in their own country to make just 50 planes which will then cost 4-5 times more than if they bought them off the original supplier.

I personally don't make my own TV or Car, but I do upgrade my desktop computer from time to time. With my desktop computer I can incrementally upgrade different things at a time and get new computing performance without needing to buy a completely new computer every time.

For someone who knows about as much about computers as I know about cars then it makes more sense to give the computer to your little sister or brother and buy yourself a new computer every 3-4 years...

Australia gave away its MIC manufacturing independence long ago, and we have sucking on Murican weiner ever since.

Ironic really... they gave up all sorts of things they were good at but took on things that just didn't make sense like growing their own rice... a water intensive crop in a desert... and they would rather burn coal than use wind or sun power for energy....

If you look at Canada full lifetime op costs for about 70 F-35 its about 100B that is probably quite close to a total cost but cheap does not exist in this game.

Nothing is cheap, but France is effectively robbing them blind and demanding India thank them for the privilege...

No wonder the US is interested... they act like stupid little school girls around France or the US when it comes to costs for military equipment, yet with Russia they haggle down to the last rupee even though they are a fraction of the cost of the western equivalent...

Sometimes I think Russia should quadruple their charges so the Indians will think it must be super high tech and they are getting value for money...

What alternatives?

Is there some other VTOL fighter jet on the market that I haven't heard about?

Make bigger carriers and use real fighters. You end up with a much better product too.

A Tu-160 costs more to buy and operate than an Su-34, but for the jobs the Tu-160 is intended for it is worth it.

Su-35 can't operate even from a supercarrier let alone this small one that Koreans are building

India and South Korea intend to use their "carriers" to support US operations against China. South Korean and Indian based Su-35s could perform the same missions at a fraction of the cost an F-35 could manage.

Only reason Koreans are even making this ship is because there is VTOL jet available for purchase

Without it there wouldn't be any Korean carrier program (or Japanese or Turkish)

Honestly these carriers are meaningless... they would be better off with no carrier at all... a helicopter AEW aircraft could spot low flying targets which could then be engaged with long range SAMs.

GarryB wrote:
Honestly these carriers are meaningless... they would be better off with no carrier at all... a helicopter AEW aircraft could spot low flying targets which could then be engaged with long range SAMs.

Carriers are a great peactime platform for policing sea lanes, in a real shooting war or for power projection against a advanced country they are not useful. For beating up the usual victims they are useful...for now. But even that is changing with the evolution of both seaborne and flying unmanned vehicles.

This is the Russian Navy thread, so in terms of the Russian Navy how many hot naval battles do you expect to happen in the next 50-100 years?

The point is that the normal state of affairs for the Russian Navy since WWII has been peace time operations.

Sure they might have delivered special forces to some place in Africa or Asia or central or south america, but in terms of operations they are and will be operating in peace time mode.

Because Russian carriers provide air support and also provide AWACS platforms and fighter air defence they are extremely valuable in attack and defence and make surface groups of ships vastly more useful and also much safer too.

There is lots of talk about drones but there is equally plenty of talk about anti drone weapons... and airburst 30mm and 57mm shells as well as much larger calibre airburst shells are packed in large numbers on most Russian ships... pretty much all of them have at least one 30mm gatling, as well as mountings for heavy machine guns too.

Lack of fire power has never been an issue for Russian and Soviet ships.

Bigger ships means longer endurance... small ships would be fine for Russian waters, but land based missiles and aircraft already have that covered. For world wide operations a larger ship is better able to defend itself and the ships and subs around it.

No ship is invulnerable, it would be stupid to expect it to be.

Big aircraft carriers make groups of Russian ships safer and more capable in both attack and defence... they might end up with mostly drones, but land based nuclear powered unlimited range drones can't replace aircraft carriers... it wont run out of fuel but will run out of munitions and weapons and it will be a long vulnerable flight home to rearm...

A bigger carrier means bigger more effective aircraft can be operated... and that is manned and unmanned aircraft.

They can use clever design to make a big ship that is lighter... I have no problem with a 40K ton cat design with a wide hull and huge hangar and aircraft capacity better than the current CV... the ship does not have to be a 90K ton goliath... but it needs to be large.

Do all these morons whom are suggesting that these landing ships be repurposed as useless carriers seriously think that Russia is incapable of making a proper carrier? It would cost more to develop a half decent 5th gen vtol than it would do build two 500m long super duper carriers.

If the Russian navy really wants to waste its whole budget thay can draw it from the bank and flush it down the toilet.

PapaDragon wrote:

Su-35 can't operate even from a supercarrier let alone this small one that Koreans are building

Only reason Koreans are even making this ship is because there is VTOL jet available for purchase

Without it there wouldn't be any Korean carrier program (or Japanese or Turkish)

Its not even that... the Japanese have one, so the Koreans must have a few of their own too - they even named them after some pissant rocks the Japanese are claiming as well. If you ask me though I doubt they really need one as much as they need to start honoring their obligations like a sovereign country instead of acting like a good and proper vassal obeying imperial dictats all the time.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Do all these morons whom are suggesting that these landing ships be repurposed as useless carriers seriously think that Russia is incapable of making a proper carrier? It would cost more to develop a half decent 5th gen vtol than it would do build two 500m long super duper carriers.

If the Russian navy really wants to waste its whole budget thay can draw it from the bank and flush it down the toilet.

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Money will be going down the shitter so might as well choose option where smallest amount of money would be going down the shitter

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Isos wrote:

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Well considering the reliability of any claims made by the vtol crowd I would not hold my breath, but If that is the case the men responsible should be rounded up and shot.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Well considering the reliability of any claims made by the vtol crowd I would not hold my breath, but If that is the case the men responsible should be rounded up and shot.

I disagree. Having planes above your fleet with a good radar and datalink will make your fleet tens of times more survivable. Even if it is a VTOL.

They can be armed with air to air missiles to attack enemy planes or missiles but also with anti ship missiles.

A carrier with su-57 and AWACS is better but more expensive and not planned (navy chief said that when they exposed the last modek of carrier at an expo).

Vtol is not as good as normal fighter but certainly better than helicopters.


Moreover, they have the yak 141 engine configuration and su-57 work (radar, stealth, missiles...). Now they just need to integrate both in one design. Lot of the work is already done. F-35 was made from 0.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Do all these morons whom are suggesting that these landing ships be repurposed as useless carriers seriously think that Russia is incapable of making a proper carrier? It would cost more to develop a half decent 5th gen vtol than it would do build two 500m long super duper carriers.

If the Russian navy really wants to waste its whole budget thay can draw it from the bank and flush it down the toilet.

Agree that VMF does not need fake carriers because of some BS claims that they are bankrupt. I am in fact sick and tired of hearing this crap, even from people that supposedly is knowledgeable about Russia. Not a single solid budgetary figure comes from them, but "Russia cannot afford"... BS

That being said, if you get a STOVL platform that is not specially expensive to develop and you find a viable export market for it, why not? I already proposed a way that may make sense, saving a lot in development and avoiding ruining the related CTOL platform, but of course the idea has limitations and the business case for the whole issue is questionable.

Isos wrote:40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

Not necessarily, a 20 kt UDK is still very limited in terms of helicopters and landing forces that it can carry. If you want to be able to land a substantial fighting force you need a big vessel or rather several of them, therefore a big UDK is simply more efficient. The flight deck is not going to grow very much from 20 to 40 kt, but the internal space for equipment, marines and crews will do, substantially.

A carrier with su-57 and AWACS is better but more expensive and not planned (navy chief said that when they exposed the last modek of carrier at an expo).

What do you mean with "not planned"? Maybe concrete plans with TTZ, budget and schedule is not, but the VMF has said many times they will get carriers and even have said they will be nuclear with 70 kt.

They say all sorts of nonsense, anyone remember that CVN concept art they were flinging around until couple of years ago?

Russia spent entire Cold War and modern day era trying to make carriers obsolete and now when they finally succeeded they are going to go full retard and waste a fortune on supercarrier?

Any fixed wing aircraft carrier that Russia might end up building will be used for 3 things and 3 things alone:

1) Naval recon

2) Bombing cavemen in some shithole

3) Dick waiving

For this 40k is already overkill and overspend

And let's not forget that supercarriers also need escorts which is another pointless expense

What do you mean with "not planned"? Maybe concrete plans with TTZ, budget and schedule is not, but the VMF has said many times they will get carriers and even have said they will be nuclear with 70 kt.

That's exactly what "not planned" means.

Isos wrote: That's exactly what "not planned" means.

To me they have plans, just not concrete plans that we know. I am not too concerned about rhetoric you know. Keep attention though, at the speed the shipbuilding is taking off, it should not take long until we hear something more concrete. As an example, 4 units of 22350 were laid in the 13 years between 2006 and 2019, and in the last two years the same amount of ships has already started construction and two more will be added probably this year. Once roadblocks are removed things will accelerate.

Big ships are still build very slowly. Carrier of 70kt aren't for soon that's for sure.

All this talk about a Russian super carrier, how long is it taking just to overhaul the one they have, and its not even an especially deep overhaul. Dock sank, gotta build a new dock whatever. The USA takes 5-7 years to build a supercarrier and they have a steady and refined process and skill base to do so. So Russia would take what? 15 years for the first and maybe 8 years for the second? If you accept that Russia is not gonna be in any major naval battles, I don't understand why a 40K hybrid carrier is a joke? Would anyone dare to challange a USN group with a Wasp class in the center with F-35 VTOLs? I doubt it. If you put an EMALS on and can do 70 sorties/day, how many airforces in the world can challange you from land let alone in the mid ocean? How many nations can challange a task force with De Gaulle at the center even if it only had 25 Rafales on board?

Apparently they do which is why they should go with LHD conversion like Japanese

But Japan didn't spend a cent developing VSTOL fighters... they knew the Americans were making one and that as a vassal state they would be forced to buy one or make a copy that was 3 times more expensive.

STOVL aircraft can operate from big ships too.

Money will be going down the shitter so might as well choose option where smallest amount of money would be going down the shitter

Yeah... that does not make sense.

You can either spend half a million dollars and buy an expensive super car if you want to show off but spending $50K on a blinged up skateboard that looks cool an might go fast for very short periods is a waste of 50K.

Given the choice of spending 4 billion on a big capable carrier or 2.5 billion on a ship to small to be useful the real choices are go big or go home... the big carrier or no carrier.

The UK has come to the same conclusion with its carriers being similar in size and weight to Russian carriers and Soviet carrier projects.

Vtol program has already started. 40kt heli carrier is also an indication they will be used with not only helicopters.

They had three VTOL programmes only one of which got an aircraft in to service and it was worse than useless by all reasonable parameters.

A 40K ton helicopter carrier shows bigger is better... the French equivalent is 20K ton... the extra weight is not for fixed wing aircraft capacity... it is for extra armoured vehicles and helicopters and things the carrier is supposed to do... not screwing around pretending to be an airfield for 4 fighter planes...

I disagree. Having planes above your fleet with a good radar and datalink will make your fleet tens of times more survivable. Even if it is a VTOL.

If that is all you want then why make them high speed fighters... subsonic drones could be designed and made on the cheap with AESA radars and AAMs that could fly above the ships and provide early warning and extra missile rails to defend the ships... building a VSTOL 5th gen fighter will be too expensive to justify... a drone wont need to be stealthy and can be much much cheaper and easier to deploy... you could design them to stack like pallets when not in use...

They can be armed with air to air missiles to attack enemy planes or missiles but also with anti ship missiles.

They will have thousand km range hypersonic anti ship missiles on all their ships and subs... why would they need planes to do that?

A carrier with su-57 and AWACS is better but more expensive and not planned (navy chief said that when they exposed the last modek of carrier at an expo).

Vtol is not as good as normal fighter but certainly better than helicopters.

And when the new VTOL fighter proves less capable than the MiG-29KR already in use they will revert to common sense and make a proper carrier with a real fighter. Modification of the Su-57 to carrier based fighter is already being worked on and will be the cheapest and most sensible option... when you can't have a lot of fighters it makes sense to have the best.

Moreover, they have the yak 141 engine configuration and su-57 work (radar, stealth, missiles...). Now they just need to integrate both in one design. Lot of the work is already done. F-35 was made from 0.

The Yak was a failure and was cancelled. Why reduce the performance of the Su-57... for carrier use they should be increasing it... besides as you say if it is just a datalink and airborne radar then the Su-57 is better than the Yak-141 was ever going to be...

Not necessarily, a 20 kt UDK is still very limited in terms of helicopters and landing forces that it can carry. If you want to be able to land a substantial fighting force you need a big vessel or rather several of them, therefore a big UDK is simply more efficient. The flight deck is not going to grow very much from 20 to 40 kt, but the internal space for equipment, marines and crews will do, substantially.

Exactly, which I why I think cramming a UDK with the stuff to be a CV or CVN is stupid... bigger carriers with more space cost more but they are worth it.

You can buy a cheap Chinese AK for a few hundred dollars, but they were made with minimum cost in mind so they are often awful... for a civilian shooter who cares, but for a military professional it will get you killed.... isn't a better quality weapon worth the extra cost?

Of course it is. I am not suggesting gold plated shit that costs more because of the profit margin... a $1,000 Russian AK makes sense but a $50K French super AR-15 knockoff is just being silly.... like a MiG-35 vs Rafale...

Maybe concrete plans with TTZ, budget and schedule is not, but the VMF has said many times they will get carriers and even have said they will be nuclear with 70 kt.

And mention of some experimental cat system for the Kuznetsov which would only be necessary if they are operating heavier aircraft like AWACS, which suggests they will do the same with a bigger carrier too.

Russia spent entire Cold War and modern day era trying to make carriers obsolete and now when they finally succeeded they are going to go full retard and waste a fortune on supercarrier?

Carriers will never be obsolete, air power is potent over land and over sea and over land no level of air defence systems operated by the Russian Army will make the Russian Air Force unnecessary... and the same is true for the Russian Navy... but the Russian Air Force can't go where the Russian Navy goes so the Russian Navy needs to take its own air force with it where ever it goes... and that means carriers.

Any fixed wing aircraft carrier that Russia might end up building will be used for 3 things and 3 things alone:

1) Naval recon

2) Bombing cavemen in some shithole

3) Dick waiving

Ensuring Russia can access different areas of the worlds oceans and ensuring other navies cannot intimidate allies and trade partners into breaking ties with Russia... which wont be done with carriers, but carriers will support the surface ships that do it.

For this 40k is already overkill and overspend

40K is a landing ship... in terms of air defence carrier it probably could not defend itself and would need to sit back and hide... rendering its air defence next to useless as the Brits found in the Falklands where they lost a few ships to enemy airpower because the tiny little Harrier carrying ships were too vulnerable to 3rd gen fighters...

And let's not forget that supercarriers also need escorts which is another pointless expense

US carriers do. Russian carriers are part of an integrated air defence network that will be radically enhanced by the dozens of jet fighters and AWACS aircraft and likely hundreds of short range air defence missiles they add to the mix. They provide early warning of attack and an extra layer of air defence with their aircraft and air to air and air to surface missiles.

Big ships are still build very slowly. Carrier of 70kt aren't for soon that's for sure.

They already have one carrier and are likely to want to test new upgrades and equipment before planning their CVNs. They will also need Destroyers in production at the very least before considering operating more carriers.

All this talk about a Russian super carrier, how long is it taking just to overhaul the one they have, and its not even an especially deep overhaul.

All this talk about dinky little VSTOL take off carriers... why haven't they scrapped the Kuznetsov which has an entirely different design and operational philosophy?

The USA takes 5-7 years to build a supercarrier and they have a steady and refined process and skill base to do so. So Russia would take what?

The US has wheels to grease and favours to call in... Russia is not building a Ford class ship so the comparison means nothing.

15 years for the first and maybe 8 years for the second?

Ridiculous estimates... but even if we pretend they are true... so what?

4 billion dollars over 15 years is less than what they are spending on making Corvettes...

If you accept that Russia is not gonna be in any major naval battles, I don't understand why a 40K hybrid carrier is a joke?

Because in tank terms we are comparing a T-26 with a T-34... a T-26 had powerful armament for any sized vehicle at the start of WWII... the 45mm gun it used was very potent and effective... but the thin armour and lack of crew numbers and poor visibility meant it was not a good vehicle and despite having literally tens of thousands of them they were cut down like wheat.

Making them bigger and heavier with a larger crew and better optics and a radio for coordination could have transformed them into amazing vehicles... isn't hindsight wonderful.

The purpose of Russian carriers is to provide air support away from Russian airspace. Making it small and cheap and limiting its capability just makes it less effective and we are talking less effective in the role of protecting your other ships. The cost for getting this wrong can be seen in the Falklands war... the bean counters won and VSTOL fighters were adopted so they could have tiny and cheaper aircraft carriers... the result is that the mission hung on the flight of Vulcan bombers down to the area to take out the airfield on the islands because otherwise the British fleet would not have even been able to approach the islands to begin with. Then the carriers had to sit off from the conflict so the carriers were not attacked which meant the air defence they provided to the other ships in the task group was pathetic and lots of ships were lost.

In comparison spending a little more money on the previous generation British carriers they had Buccaneers and AWACS planes... the former could have easily taken out the airfields on the Falklands without a long range strike with the Vulcan (which was seriously risky and likely rather expensive). They could have had Phantoms on the ship as well which could have shot down Argentine aircraft at BVR and been in an ideal position to launch missile attacks in coordination with AWACs aircraft from the carrier... they should have been able to shoot down Argentine aircraft carrying exocets almost before they launched and probably the missiles themselves too. They would not have lost three ships, and the Argentines didn't have that many Exocets... against a better armed enemy they would have been in very serious trouble... to save some money spent on British shipyards building carriers for Britain...

Would anyone dare to challange a USN group with a Wasp class in the center with F-35 VTOLs? I doubt it.

If that was the problem the Soviets would never have bothered making most of their better anti ship missiles... even subsonic anti ship missiles would do the job...

If you put an EMALS on and can do 70 sorties/day, how many airforces in the world can challange you from land let alone in the mid ocean?

So what you are saying is that a pistol can kill people... why not save money and issue your soldiers with pistols and SMG because it is cheaper and your flak jackets and radios and communication as well as your tactics are so much better than any third world country could muster that bigger heavier weapons are not needed... think of the money you will save... except no matter what the size Russia is never going to buy 20 CVNs... if they buy big ones... 70-90K ton they will probably get 2 or three at most... and the irony is that if they want 40K ton mini carriers they will probably need 3-4 to do the same job as one big CVN so two CVNs at perhaps 10 billion for the two (Russians don't make expensive stuff), or 2 billion each for 6 or more mini carriers... wow... yeah... I really see that ten billion dollars on two capable CVNs big enough to carry actually useful aircraft in actually useful numbers is so expensive while 12 billion dollars plus the 20 odd billion dollars to develop a STVOL fifth gen fighter to operate from it is going to be much cheaper with smaller lighter much less capable fighters with shorter range and lower flight performance...

I guess using the same logic they should replace all their Su-30s and Su-35s with MiG-35s because smaller is cheaper right... and when talking about Air Force aircraft we are talking hundreds of aircraft so the savings are multiplied so it makes even more sense...

How many nations can challange a task force with De Gaulle at the center even if it only had 25 Rafales on board?

The fact that none have genuinely tried makes that a loaded question.

Perhaps a better question would be how close to Russian waters are French fleets free to sail safe in the knowledge that they are not in danger?

For Russia a surface fleet of ships would be vulnerable near any western country right now but with the support of one CVN with 90 Su-57s and full AWACS support and also the naval equivalents of hundreds of S-500 and S-400 and S-350 and Pantsir and TOR batteries... they are suddenly much much safer and probably for not much more cost than a fully armed cruiser with hundreds of launch tubes filled with attack missiles and defence missiles of all types.

What don't you understand in "they have no plan for 70kt carriers".

They are only building large helicopter carrier on which they can put VTOL jets.

A 200kt carrier would be better than a 70kt carrier too. That doesn't mean they will build it.

InterPlanetary Ballistic Missiles (IPBM) arr better than ICBMs yet they plan no missiles on Mars or on the moon.

You need to stick with reality.

GarryB wrote:
All this talk about dinky little VSTOL take off carriers... why haven't they scrapped the Kuznetsov which has an entirely different design and operational philosophy?

Because they have it, and even the 40K ships will take at least 6 years to deliver

The US has wheels to grease and favours to call in... Russia is not building a Ford class ship so the comparison means nothing.

Oh!! And Russia does not? lol. If anything they are worse. So even if they build a Nimitz class or a KuzII what will that take ..once the dock is completed.

 

Ridiculous estimates... but even if we pretend they are true... so what?

Considering the project has already started with some of the plans we have seen, by the time this ship is in service it would have taken at LEAST 15 years even if they laid it down tomorrow.

Because in tank terms we are comparing a T-26 with a T-34... a T-26 had powerful armament for any sized vehicle at the start of WWII... the 45mm gun it used was very potent and effective... but the thin armour and lack of crew numbers and poor visibility meant it was not a good vehicle and despite having literally tens of thousands of them they were cut down like wheat.

Making them bigger and heavier with a larger crew and better optics and a radio for coordination could have transformed them into amazing vehicles... isn't hindsight wonderful.

The purpose of Russian carriers is to provide air support away from Russian airspace. Making it small and cheap and limiting its capability just makes it less effective and we are talking less effective in the role of protecting your other ships. The cost for getting this wrong can be seen in the Falklands war... the bean counters won and VSTOL fighters were adopted so they could have tiny and cheaper aircraft carriers... the result is that the mission hung on the flight of Vulcan bombers down to the area to take out the airfield on the islands because otherwise the British fleet would not have even been able to approach the islands to begin with. Then the carriers had to sit off from the conflict so the carriers were not attacked which meant the air defence they provided to the other ships in the task group was pathetic and lots of ships were lost.

In comparison spending a little more money on the previous generation British carriers they had Buccaneers and AWACS planes... the former could have easily taken out the airfields on the Falklands without a long range strike with the Vulcan (which was seriously risky and likely rather expensive). They could have had Phantoms on the ship as well which could have shot down Argentine aircraft at BVR and been in an ideal position to launch missile attacks in coordination with AWACs aircraft from the carrier... they should have been able to shoot down Argentine aircraft carrying exocets almost before they launched and probably the missiles themselves too. They would not have lost three ships, and the Argentines didn't have that many Exocets... against a better armed enemy they would have been in very serious trouble...  to save some money spent on British shipyards building carriers for Britain...

If they did not have those carriers they could not have even conducteed the operation, and I think your thinking is obsolete. With UAVs the nature of naval air power will shift significantly.

Wasp class in the center with F-35 VTOLs?
If that was the problem the Soviets would never have bothered making most of their better anti ship missiles... even subsonic anti ship missiles would do the job...

I think we are long past the pretense that carriers would be useful in a Russia/USA war.

So what you are saying is that a pistol can kill people... why not save money and issue your soldiers with pistols and SMG because it is cheaper and your flak jackets and radios and communication as well as your tactics are so much better than any third world country could muster that bigger heavier weapons are not needed... think of the money you will save... except no matter what the size Russia is never going to buy 20 CVNs... if they buy big ones... 70-90K ton they will probably get 2 or three at most... and the irony is that if they want 40K ton mini carriers they will probably need 3-4 to do the same job as one big CVN so two CVNs at perhaps 10 billion for the two (Russians don't make expensive stuff), or 2 billion each for 6 or more mini carriers... wow... yeah... I really see that ten billion dollars on two capable CVNs big enough to carry actually useful aircraft in actually useful numbers is so expensive while 12 billion dollars plus the 20 odd billion dollars to develop a STVOL fifth gen fighter to operate from it is going to be much cheaper with smaller lighter much less capable fighters with shorter range and lower flight performance...

That is nonsense. Today they simply do not have the skill base and facilities to build a super carrier. They do not even have the facilties to overhaul the one sizable carrier they have. So the question is, do we wait 10-15 years for this capability or accept a significant capabilty earlier. What is the foreign policy behind this carrier? Lets face it if Russia builds 3 super carriers and goes head to head with the US 12 CVNS is game over. So who is the opposition here. If you have 25 MIG-29s on a carrier equipped with KH-31, that allows you to dominate a HUGE radius of sea and rain hellfire on weak nations from 800KM, close sea lanes or just stick the ship there and dare the USA to hit it and end the world.

How many nations can challange a task force with De Gaulle at the center even if it only had 25 Rafales on board? -

The fact that none have genuinely tried makes that a loaded question.

None have tried..hmmmm isn't that really what we are after? None have DARED.

Perhaps a better question would be how close to Russian waters are French fleets free to sail safe in the knowledge that they are not in danger?

Even the USA with its massive super carriers is not safe to sail near Russian or Chinese waters. They know full well if war breaks out both the Chinese and Russians can defeat their carriers.

For Russia a surface fleet of ships would be vulnerable near any western country right now but with the support of one CVN with 90 Su-57s and full AWACS support and also the naval equivalents of hundreds of S-500 and S-400 and S-350 and Pantsir and TOR batteries... they are suddenly much much safer and probably for not much more cost than a fully armed cruiser with hundreds of launch tubes filled with attack missiles and defence missiles of all types.

No it would not. Fact is, if anyone messed with a Russian warship they know full well Russia has the means to retaliate in a million different ways. No one today would dare touch a Russian warship unless it is to render assistance. Even the clapped out old Russian ASW ship was able to intimidate an advanced US destroyer even though the US destroyer easily outgunned it (Peter the Great gulf  incident).

What don't you understand in "they have no plan for 70kt carriers".

They do. They have talked about wanting carriers with larger aircraft capacity than the current Kuznetsov... in other words they want something bigger than 55K tons and most of their comments talk about 70-90K tons.

They are only building large helicopter carrier on which they can put VTOL jets.

No.

They are building Helicopter carriers to carry Helicopters... if they want VTOL jets then the Ka-52K with AESA radar and Air to Air missiles would be totally redundant and pointless... the naval Ka-52 would be identical to the Army model that is dedicated to engaging ground targets with secondary air to air capability for self defence.

VTOL fifth gen fighters will take longer to develop and perfect than CVNs.

A 200kt carrier would be better than a 70kt carrier too. That doesn't mean they will build it.

No it would not. There is such a thing as too big. 200Kt would be too big and too heavy and too expensive for the performance level it could achieve....

Just the same as a 110K ton carrier is not useful for Russia either... if they wanted a strike capacity that allowed them to attack countries and invade them then 100K ton plus carriers would be needed to carry the heavy strike aircraft and numbers of fighters to support fighter and bomber activity in enemy airspace.

The Russians don't need that... cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles can better penetrate enemy airspace and take down targets rather more efficiently and effectively and without support aircraft.... a Russian carrier is primarily an air defence carrier intended to defend surface groups of ships from enemy attack... surprise or otherwise.

You need to stick with reality.

Yeah, Britain wants two carriers and France wants two carriers but Russia can't afford them?

Or they can't build them because they don't know how...

Because they have it, and even the 40K ships will take at least 6 years to deliver

So the 40K ships that are helicopter carriers will take 6 years to deliver and there were plans for four with the Mistrals, so we can assume an order for two more after that 6 years so maybe four years after that they will have four 40K ton helicopter landing ships... so their 40K ton VSTOL fighter carriers will not be laid down for at least 10 years and will likely take another 6-8 years beyond that to develop assuming a VSTOL fighter is even ready by then... and creating a 5th gen VSTOL fighter in just 16 years is pretty damn short notice... especially committing to building carriers 10 years into development of the aircraft themselves... sounds a bit risky to me...

Oh!! And Russia does not? lol. If anything they are worse.

Yeah.... obviously... 65 billion a year and most MIC companies up to their eyeballs in debt to banks because of their tiny margins selling to the Russian government... they are just dripping in corruption... worse you say... really?

So even if they build a Nimitz class or a KuzII what will that take ..once the dock is completed.

Yeah, they are spending big money upgrading shipyards to build big ships and now (2020-2022) when such shipyards become available ready to produce ships they decide not to use them?

That was money well spent. Sure they will be making large 350K ton gas carriers and oil carrying ships, but I am pretty sure they could spare one slip to build a big carrier...

Considering the project has already started with some of the plans we have seen, by the time this ship is in service it would have taken at LEAST 15 years even if they laid it down tomorrow.

Aircraft carriers are neither quick to make nor cheap... but some 40K carrier can be built overnight and has ready made VSTOL fighters superior to Su-57s ready to go... NOT.

They are going to replace all their big helicopters with V-22 clones too... all the talk of EMALS cats and high speed helicopters is just disinformation.

Talk of STOL aircraft just means small planes with very powerful engines... the sort you need to supercruise.... I am sure if they can manage STOVL they will give it a try, but as usual it will be more of a pain in the arse than a valuable asset as usual as it has for all other attempts at such designs and it will be dropped to prevent it becoming a Russian F-35.

If they did not have those carriers they could not have even conducteed the operation, and I think your thinking is obsolete.

That is right... even having poor air support was better than no air support at all.... but a 40K ton carrier with Ka-31s and Ka-52Ks can provide poor air support already without a single cent being wasted on VSTOL fighters, but Ka-52Ks and Ka-31s could also operate on bigger ships like the Kuznetsov and also provide similar support if all other solutions fail they can also use MiG-29KRs or upgraded MiG-35s for even better. But their plans are for EMALS cats and AWACS aircraft and Su-57s which would not only be better than helicopters for both roles, but would also be better than any VSTOL alternative.

They don't need dozens of CVNs... perhaps two more at most together with the Kuznetsov would be fine for the next 30 + years.

They might end up carrying hypersonic drones, but they will remain useful... because air power will always be useful.

I think we are long past the pretense that carriers would be useful in a Russia/USA war.

Which is why I keep wondering why you bring up the false claim that in WWIII all carriers will be dead so having more smaller cheaper carriers makes more sense than fewer bigger ones.

All ships will be dead in WWIII eventually, but in peace time two CVNs is going to be more use and cheaper than the 6 or more small carriers you would need to give you similar performance... and the difference would be compounded further as new things become available like newer smaller more compact catapults, and drones that offer AWACS level performance from fighter sized airframes etc.

Today they simply do not have the skill base and facilities to build a super carrier.

So the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East designed to build military and civilian conventional and nuclear powered ships up to 350K ton weight and 400m in length is not facilities to build an aircraft carrier?

Do you think the British and French and Americans and Chinese have some magic secrets that allow them to make large carriers that Russia does not understand and cannot develop for themselves?

They do not even have the facilties to overhaul the one sizable carrier they have.

But they have... they said it will be back in the water on schedule... 2022 or 23 or something...

So the question is, do we wait 10-15 years for this capability or accept a significant capabilty earlier.

What capability earlier?

Where is this VSTOL 5th gen fighter coming from... and what magic is going to get the yards currently building helicopter landing ships to magically be able to make air defence carriers... wont they need to learn new magic?

What is the foreign policy behind this carrier?

The foreign policy is that the west has rejected Russia and will willfully act against Russia every chance it gets so if Russia wants to foster good relations and trade with countries around the world then they will need a military presence around the world to back that up. Military presence without air support is always weaker than with air support.

Or do you think the west will be nice and let Russia create good trade relations with countries around the world without imposing sanctions like they did in Venezuela?

What country is going to trade with Russia at the risk of Washington initiated coup threats...

The US and the west want to isolate Russia to break her... Russia needs her own independent access to the world... and that is what a carrier does.

Lets face it if Russia builds 3 super carriers and goes head to head with the US 12 CVNS is game over.

Russia does not build any carriers or ships bigger than a frigate and the west will put sanctions and trade embargoes against any customer that dares trade with Russia and Russia suffocates and dies.

So who is the opposition here. If you have 25 MIG-29s on a carrier equipped with KH-31, that allows you to dominate a HUGE radius of sea and rain hellfire on weak nations from 800KM, close sea lanes or just stick the ship there and dare the USA to hit it and end the world.

Get WWIII out of your head.... Russia does not need carriers to fight WWIII Russia will fuck the US with ICBMS, SLBMs, air launched cruise missiles, unlimited range nuclear powered cruise missiles... nuclear powered nuclear armed underwater drones... carriers will be irrelevant in WWIII... Russia already has anti ship missiles to deal with US carriers for WWIII, but no amount of anti ship missiles will protect a surface group of Russian ships anywhere on the planet.

Sailing through international waters a dozen blips appear on the radar heading towards the Russian ships and are closing... what does the Russian commander do?

Send a ship? That would take hours. Wait till the blips get within visual range... pretty damn risky... send out a helicopter... that would take almost as long as the ship and be much more vulnerable... send a flight of four Su-57s at mach 1.6 in supercruise fully armed with AAMs to investigate...

Hmmm... which one will stop a civilian airliner being shot down in error... or that twitchy commander can just try to guess what to do...

A group of Yachts, some formation of drones being used for some civilian purpose, a group of small aircraft on a sight seeing trip, a group of fishing vessels... catamarans practising for the Americas cup...

But if it is a group of subsonic anti ship missiles the greater distance you can detect and confirm what they are the greater distance you can start shooting them down.... meaning orders of magnitude more missiles will be needed to defeat your force... but you want to save a few dollars...

None have tried..hmmmm isn't that really what we are after? None have DARED.

Which is what you get with carrier support, but the French are really pushing the limit with the CdG, it is going to struggle in the future against 5th gen aircraft.

From a Russian perspective a Rafale is essentially a MIG-35... if they could use Su-57s they would and they can with a bigger ship.

Even the USA with its massive super carriers is not safe to sail near Russian or Chinese waters.

That is right, though I would argue that they would be much safer off the coasts of western countries because western countries don't have the land based air defence capacity that Russia does.

I keep telling you Russia does not need aircraft carriers for WWIII or to invade or approach the US coast or the EU... they are for peace time use to assure the protection and improve the performance of Russian surface ships. Nukes will deal with the west...

They know full well if war breaks out both the Chinese and Russians can defeat their carriers.

They have never used their carriers against Russia and are unlikely to ever try in the future... does that mean their carriers are useless?

The US has a self appointed mission of being the world police so having 10-12 carriers and carrier groups positioned around the world is critical to them being able to get anywhere fast to bully and murder.

Russia does not need that, which means smaller carriers will do, but better aircraft are needed, to ensure the best protection of Russian ships.

You complain it will be 15 years... it will be 15 years before they have enough cruisers and destroyers to operate with new CVNs anyway.

No it would not. Fact is, if anyone messed with a Russian warship they know full well Russia has the means to retaliate in a million different ways.

Promises mean nothing... Israeli forces attacked a barely armed US ship pretending they didn't know it was American because it was a spy ship and could detect they were violating their agreement with the US... they kept pretending they did not recognise the ship until they intercepted the call saying F-14 tomcats had gotten their mayday and were inbound... if those F-14s were not there it is likely a lot more US sailors would have died that day... murdered by an ally...

Now there are no Russian Navy ships that only have two heavy machine guns for self defence... they are not idiots... but even still a ship on its own is vulnerable and the response time for an aircraft is always much much better than for any ship or sub.

Having said that if it was a Russian Navy spy ship the only response would be for a nearby cruiser to launch an S-400 and shoot down the aircraft that was attacking the Russian ship and to launch a long range anti ship missile to take out the small boat that torpedoed the ship... so in this example the alternative would have killed Israelis... but then better tactics should have seen the ship operating in what was a war zone with a proper escort so the "mistake" would never have happened.

No one today would dare touch a Russian warship unless it is to render assistance.

Really? Does that apply to Su-24s killing terrorists too?

Even the clapped out old Russian ASW ship was able to intimidate an advanced US destroyer even though the US destroyer easily outgunned it (Peter the Great gulf incident).

I believe it is called BMNB syndrome... (Big Mouth, No Balls)

Of course the fact that they sailed two kilometres into Russian waters suggests your claims don't hold water.

GarryB wrote:Just the same as a 110K ton carrier is not useful for Russia either... if they wanted a strike capacity that allowed them to attack countries and invade them then 100K ton plus carriers would be needed to carry the heavy strike aircraft and numbers of fighters to support fighter and bomber activity in enemy airspace.

The discussion is a lost cause, while people do not bother reading a bit about naval doctrine and understanding what carriers are actually for...

The Russians don't need that... cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles can better penetrate enemy airspace and take down targets rather more efficiently and effectively and without support aircraft.... a Russian carrier is primarily an air defence carrier intended to defend surface groups of ships from enemy attack... surprise or otherwise.

Exactly, and for that mission you do not need thousands of tons in bombs, but rather some dozens advanced AShMs that can penetrate the AD of the enemy fleet and long ranged fighters that can deliver them wherever needed.

Yeah, Britain wants two carriers and France wants two carriers but Russia can't afford them?

Too much time reading Western yapping about the imminent collapse of Russia, but no real calculation to show that a crumbling country like UK is being far more wasteful than Russia would be building their carriers and for no logical reason beyond phantom imperial pain... for Russia it is an imperative question of being able to develop as a world power to the point natural for its resources, both natural and human.

Yeah.... obviously... 65 billion a year and most MIC companies up to their eyeballs in debt to banks because of their tiny margins selling to the Russian government... they are just dripping in corruption... worse you say...  really?

People need to realize that such companies have been finally relieved of that unbearable burden of toxic debts, with the consequences that can have on the development of the navy.

GarryB wrote:
The Russians don't need that... cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles can better penetrate enemy airspace and take down targets rather more efficiently and effectively and without support aircraft.... a Russian carrier is primarily an air defence carrier intended to defend surface groups of ships from enemy attack... surprise or otherwise.


Yeah.... obviously... 65 billion a year and most MIC companies up to their eyeballs in debt to banks because of their tiny margins selling to the Russian government... they are just dripping in corruption... worse you say...  really?

Oh yes!! The oligarchs have been robbing them blind, they know they will get bailed out .

Yeah, they are spending big money upgrading shipyards to build big ships and now (2020-2022) when such shipyards become available ready to produce ships they decide not to use them?

That was money well spent.  Sure they will be making large 350K ton gas carriers and oil carrying ships, but I am pretty sure they could spare one slip to build a big carrier...

As you say for gas carriers but those are about 80-100K tons. Maybe they will build a larger carrier, but that does not mean they may do something interesting with these ships so they can get naval avaiation running faster. They take as much as 7 years to build a corvette from keel to commision, a nuclear carrier will take a looooooooong time. Especially since its the first one in decades. Once the Mistral deal was cancelled, it took years to actually get the Russian ships designed and laid down. 6 years pretty much. Now at least a 6 year buildout. (that is optimistic considering how they build corvettes and destroyters let alone nuclear subs. )

Aircraft carriers are neither quick to make nor cheap... but some 40K carrier can be built overnight and has ready made VSTOL fighters superior to Su-57s ready to go... NOT

I am not in the VTOL camp, it will take too long, too risky and too expensive. I do not rule out EMALS as it is doable, and requires tech the Russians have been working on for a very long time and need to perfect for the future. I would not also rule out a JATO type cat. that adds 100K thrust at takeoff.

That is right... even having poor air support was better than no air support at all.... but a 40K ton carrier with Ka-31s and Ka-52Ks can provide poor air support already without a single cent being wasted on VSTOL fighters, but Ka-52Ks and Ka-31s could also operate on bigger ships like the Kuznetsov and also provide similar support if all other solutions fail they can also use MiG-29KRs or upgraded MiG-35s for even better. But their plans are for EMALS cats and AWACS aircraft and Su-57s which would not only be better than helicopters for both roles, but would also be better than any VSTOL alternative.

I am not in the VSTOL camp, I think its not a good investment, there is no reason they cannot operate an SU-57 from a 40K ton carrier.

They might end up carrying hypersonic drones, but they will remain useful... because air power will always be useful.

Drones are the future, manned planes are gonna be dogmeat in very short order

Which is why I keep wondering why you bring up the false claim that in WWIII all carriers will be dead so having more smaller cheaper carriers makes more sense than fewer bigger ones.

Small carriers are perfect for fleet defence and air support ops, fact is, weak countries will be much more dangerous in terms of being able to attack ships with small subs, unmanned water and seabased drones. Large carriers are nice but  mid size are perfectly fine. France is operating AWACS from its 40K ton carrier. To keep one carrier available you need 3, so from that perspective smaller carriers make sense.

So the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East designed to build military and civilian conventional and nuclear powered ships up to 350K ton weight and 400m in length is not facilities to build an aircraft carrier?

Do you think the British and French and Americans and Chinese have some magic secrets that allow them to make large carriers that Russia does not understand and cannot develop for themselves?

The French YES they build massive cruise ships and things like Mistral and have the finest drydock on the effin planet with mild weather. The Americans YES they have been consistanly been building super carriers for 80 years!!!  The Brits kept their skill base with some smaller ships, but even they had problems. The Russians skill base is now in a foreign country, so they have to reconsitute this and it will take a long time and be painful. A carrier is not the same as an LNG ship and those are not exactly flying off the dock even with the help of the Koreans.

But they have... they said it will be back in the water on schedule... 2022 or 23 or something...

Assuming the dock is ready on time...we shall see.

What capability earlier?

Where is this VSTOL 5th gen fighter coming from... and what magic is going to get the yards currently building helicopter landing ships to magically be able to make air defence carriers... wont they need to learn new magic?

Operate fighters from the 40K ton carrier.

Russia does not build any carriers or ships bigger than a frigate and the west will put sanctions and trade embargoes against any customer that dares trade with Russia and Russia suffocates and dies.

Russia has China and India and the eurasian continent. It will be fine.

So who is the opposition here. If you have 25 MIG-29s on a carrier equipped with KH-31, that allows you to dominate a HUGE radius of sea and rain hellfire on weak nations from 800KM, close sea lanes or just stick the ship there and dare the USA to hit it and end the world.



Sailing through international waters a dozen blips appear on the radar heading towards the Russian ships and are closing... what does the Russian commander do?

Send a ship? That would take hours. Wait till the blips get within visual range... pretty damn risky... send out a helicopter... that would take almost as long as the ship and be much more vulnerable... send a flight of four Su-57s at mach 1.6 in supercruise fully armed with AAMs to investigate...

Hmmm... which one will stop a civilian airliner being shot down in error... or that twitchy commander can just try to guess what to do...

A group of Yachts, some formation of drones being used for some civilian purpose, a group of small aircraft on a sight seeing trip, a group of fishing vessels... catamarans practising for the Americas cup...

But if it is a group of subsonic anti ship missiles the greater distance you can detect and confirm what they are the greater distance you can start shooting them down.... meaning orders of magnitude more missiles will be needed to defeat your force... but you want to save a few dollars...

A Russian commander will have his ships deployed in a wide area and will have radar pickets with drones.

Which is what you get with carrier support, but the French are really pushing the limit with the CdG, it is going to struggle in the future against 5th gen aircraft.

From a Russian perspective a Rafale is essentially a MIG-35... if they could use Su-57s they would and they can with a bigger ship.

They don't need a much larger ship to use SU-57s, a 40K ton ship can do it, just fewer then Mig-35s.

Promises mean nothing... Israeli forces attacked a barely armed US ship pretending they didn't know it was American because it was a spy ship and could detect they were violating their agreement with the US... they kept pretending they did not recognise the ship until they intercepted the call saying F-14 tomcats had gotten their mayday and were inbound... if those F-14s were not there it is likely a lot more US sailors would have died that day... murdered by an ally...

That was then, Russian spy ships probably have some pretty nasty weapons these days. A koronet with Themobaric warhead will ruin anyones day.

Really?  Does that apply to Su-24s killing terrorists too?

The Turkish AF is full of dissidents, which is why there was a massive purge after the coup. And Turkey was quickly brought to heel.

Of course the fact that they sailed two kilometres into Russian waters suggests your claims don't hold water.

Just a calling card, poke the bear, poke the eagle. The Americans were never gonna risk a shooting engagement.