I know it's location, don't lecture me on geography.
I specifically said Lake Baikal because it is an unreasonable place to put a carrier... how would you get an aircraft carrier there in the first place?
When you didn't mention that first off, I kinda assumed you were thinking of some other lake.
losing 2 fighters which forced its squadrons to operate from Syria.
That was an arrester gear issue and had nothing to do with the weather...
Then why they used NAF from the Adm. K to attack land targets in Syria?
It was a realistic training opportunity, that is very unlikely to be available in 4-5 years time when the Kuznetsov is ready for deployments again.
It was never going to be a long term deployment either...
Having 2 training CVs will make them last longer.
The cost of building a training CV and using the existing CV as a training ship would be a terrible waste of money that would better be spent building a couple of 20K ton destroyer/cruisers that could be sent world wide on operations on their own or in groups.
A CVN or CV would make them safer and more effective but not critical to begin with.
A smaller 1 can cruise in the shallow Azov Sea off NITKA in Eisk in the warm months for le$$ than in the Black Sea.
Two land based training centres should be plenty for maintaining basic skills and when the K enters the water again they can train off that too.
A modern carrier spends its time doing three things... operational... training.... and overhauls and upgrades... there is nothing you can do about overhauls and upgrades, but having another training carrier doesn't mean you don't need to train on your primary carrier... having a training carrier doesn't mean the kuznetsov can just go straight from overhaul and upgrade directly to fully operational... the whole point of the training cycle is to test the upgrades and modifications and to potentially develop new tactics and training methods to suit any changes made before it is ready for operations.
The reality is that two ships are enough because unless there is an accident you should have at least one ship in training or operational if something happens... much of the time you might have two ships ready because upgrades or overhauls can be delayed if the ship is needed.
After refit, Adm. K will still be needing repairs & may be deployed to Med., etc, & it isn't going to last more than 20-25 years anyway. If it's in the NF, training there in winter is too dangerous & taxing on ships & aircraft.
If it is based in the northern fleet then it can go on operational deployments during the winter period to Cuba or Venezuela or Vietnam or just around the place...
It will be easier to support the ship and the other large ships it will be operating with in the Pacific or Northern fleets than in the Black sea.
The extra $ spent on that r better spent on other things; the Med. is a lot closer to the Black Sea & there r more immediate Russian interests to defend there.
There is Syria, but an aircraft carrier wont make much difference there at all. Libya would get Russia entangled in another conflict they would be better off avoiding all together to be honest... Russia isn't some sort of world policeman... righting all the wrongs of the west...
Showing the flag isn't to win favors, but demonstrate presence & intent to defend 1's interests.
Quite true, but where in the Med will Russia stick its flag?
It is already in Syria. Egypt might become friendlier but who knows. Algeria can be reached from the Northern Fleet without having to run the gauntlet of NATO countries to the north and west.
which included attacking land targets; ur argument came a full circle.
Was an opportunity to test a capability that is all.
Any that will launch LRAShM they r now developing, besides subs firing them & torpedoes.
So you are suggesting a NATO country will attack a Russian ship with a anti ship missile or torpedoes "to damage it" or "take it out of action".
Could that not be considered an act of war? Would the Russian ship captain perhaps think he is then justified to launch a 91ER1 anti sub torpedo missile (against a sub threat) or a Zircon or Onyx against the ship that launched it, or S-350 SAM against the aircraft that launched that attack?
In 1986 they got rammed & damaged off Crimea, which was not totally unexpected. For the elites, the military is expendable.
I assume you are referring to the US testing its rights under international law to sail in straight lines through Soviet waters... the soviets refrained from opening fire but did run into the US ship in question... and to be clear neither ship opened fire on the other.
This refutes the notion that superpowers + 3rd world countries r not going to shot at each other in anger.
It shows that the US is prepared to violate Soviet air and sea space and the Soviets were prepared to respond with minimum force when the enemy refused to comply with instructions.
If a Russian ship entered NATO waters then their might be an incident but I doubt either side would open fire and I fail to see what difference Russia having a carrier on hand would make to the situation anyway.
The USN sends it CVNs whenever & wherever it's ordered to do so by the Pentagon; if Russia is to defend her interests, she better be able to do the same.
USN CVNs don't operate well in the Arctic and rarely venture there... their steam catapults tend to freeze which means they can't launch aircraft... which sort of makes them aircraft transport barges...
Russia is interested in having air power in its northern and far eastern areas and from those places they can sail down the GIUK to the atlantic and past alaska to the pacific ocean and therefore access most of the world rather readily.
True, but there r many other situations, as u btw described, that better handled with fighters on hair trigger alert.
Being able to send aircraft in peace time to investigate something means a better picture of what is happening, which means the commander of the surface group is less likely to be surprised or overwhelmed and it gives him rather more options... a more flexible response in terms of detection and identification and attack and defence... but they wont have enough carriers for every fleet to have a carrier...
The Med. to Russia is what the SC Sea is to China & the Mexican Gulf/Caribbean r to the USA.
In a sense yes it is... but for Russia, its navy is for global reach, not close in protection... close in protection is much easier and cheaper with MiGs with Kinzhal missiles, or small boat and shore launched Zircon missiles... the idea of a carrier is to be able to expand Russia economically and politically around the world... not just reach into NATOs backyard... go for Americas back yard central and south america... and colonial europes backyard in asia and africa... start new trade relationships and build new transport ships to carry that trade back and forth.
The CV-16 trained in the SC Sea already & will go there again before other CV/Ns r built; the USN CVNs used & probably still use the Caribbean for final pre-deployment training as well.
Black & Med. Seas can be used for different kinds & levels of training.
China expects to fight the US in the SC sea or over taiwan and the US will fight any one any where because they think they own the place... not a good way to decide where to base the Russian carriers...
point is any carrier is a sitting duck against a real enemy ….
But that is the point... they are not... they are an important part of the defence...
Do you think a Russian air base in Syria is a sitting duck with S-400 and Pantsir and TOR protecting it?
A Russian carrier will have the equivalent of probably 30 S-400 batteries and probably the same number of S-350 batteries plus Pantsir and TOR, and not to mention the Su-57 based fighters operating on it that will also defend it... covered by its own custom made AWACS platforms and satellites and SSNs.
Do you still think it is a sitting duck?
More importantly if it wasn't there and there was no AWACS and no fighter cover how much easier would that make those ships to kill?
what amazes me are those utterly ridiculous RN QE class "carriers"
huge …. but they have utterly useless short-range S/VTOL F-35Bs on board ….
I agree in that regard... spend billions on a ship and then buy really expensive but slow and short range VSTOL fighters is short sighted.
going back to "car carriers"
they are a good investment as a multi-function regional support political and humanitarian type ship
I suspect they will go for slightly bigger Mistral type ships with nuclear power and better armament, but carrying helicopters and equipped for landing Russian naval infantry.
They will also likely make CVNs with slightly more aircraft capacity than the Kuznetsov plus AWACS and EMALS... and a STOL 5th gen light fighter from MiG.
and Yantar can't do bigger than 150m x 25m ….. so I am personally 90% sure what they will build next
Zvezda in the far east is a brand new upgraded shipyard for tankers and gas ships and is intended for 350m long ships up to 350K ton.
what is a carrier group to Russia ?
fn useless ….
Russia is surrounded by former neighbour clients that now look west for instruction... EU etc... Russia needs new trading partners and her options are not rail or road connected directly... Russia can be a road rail connection between asia and the EU, but I don't think the EU will tolerate Russia making much money from that for long... Russia needs to expand its infrastructure internally and internationally... internally that means lots of high speed rail networks... airfields and highways and roads, but internationally she needs a compact and powerful and highly mobile navy that can go anywhere with its own air cover... so that means aircraft carriers.
If the US invaded Venezuela today there is not much Russia could actually directly do except support a guerilla war against them... in 10 years time they could send the Kuznetsov for a visit to deter such a stupid move from the US... which would piss the US off no end even if it did save them and the venezuelans from a nasty bloody war.
Russia does not need a carrier to invade NATO or to attack Russia... they could do with one to stop Libya and the same thing happening in Venezuela or Nicaragua or Yemen or where ever... they need to be able to back up their words with something solid... a Kirov class or modern equivalent is good enough most of the time, but a modern cruiser with carrier support says it with flowers...
a total waste of money and resources …. that could be better spent on regional Russia ...
Russia without a capable navy that can project power and protect Russian interests is an isolated and economically crippled Russia that will always find potential customers rapidly put under sanction and then turned to trade with the west instead. do you think they wouldn't?
Selling raw supplies and energy to China wont be enough... they need customers for their other goods...
re "carriers" I see Russia is thinking of doing Borei class nuke subs armed with cruise missiles ….
this is what I've been saying makes more sense - SSGNs …. they are the true "super carriers" of the modern era ….
In terms of power projection and getting the confidence of countries to choose to trade with Russia... a SSGN is not so good... unless you are prepared to attack USN forces blockading a port... or intercepting and seizing material sent to or from the country to Russia...
thing is re carriers vs SSGNs … SSGNs can send their missiles on "suicide" missions … they don't need to come back, so your strike range is effectively double any carrier with manned aircraft that have pilots wanting to come back alive …. ie fly both ways …. not one
A Russian carrier group can launch large numbers of cruise missiles to take down enemy threats before the bombers are sent in...
To be fair if Russia had a carrier capable of carrying out large scale airstrikes they would be using that over sub-launched cruise missiles
Russian carriers are optimised as air defence carriers to protect the ships it operates with. Those fighters will have the capacity to fly missions into enemy air space and drop dumb bombs from safe altitudes to destroy targets relatively cheaply but only after cruise missiles and fighters have taken out radar, comms, HQs, and enemy air power before hand.
A Russian carrier is primarily there to protect the fleet of ships and subs, the ships and subs will destroy any enemy fleet or today land based threat.
They used the submarines because that's all they had, those cruise missiles are also much more expensive per unit then an aircrafts bombs. Aircraft launched from a carrier can strike targets more often.
Well to be fair those land attack cruise missiles were excellent value for money because their nuclear warheads were devastating, but could only be used during WWIII as they had no conventionally armed versions.
It was also to show the world "hey we can do this to"
They mentioned quite some time before they had cruise missiles but western experts were pretty much in denial up until they were actually used and used effectively.
Why not give a display as well as test some new weapons at the same time.
It's not like the rats in Syria have AA to threaten Russian Aircraft.
When you say rats I assume you don't include their airforce provided by NATO?
SSGNs r good at conducting surgical strikes; with nukes they can act as semi-strategic subs if nothing better is at hand.
Their SSGNs were for taking out US carrier groups which were perceived as a serious threat... at the time there was no interest in power projection or global reach in terms of naval power it was self defence first...