Russian Naval Aviation To Get Modernized Version Of Su-33 Carrier-Based Fighter

In North Atlantic, South Indian Ocean, east Pacific yes, but this zone of control is constantly eroding due to missile advances and political developments. Just two bases, a Chinese base in the Horn of Africa and one Russian in south Caribbean can greatly alter this ‘strategic oceanography’ based upon the safe operational range of carrier groups, particularly in key nodes (Antacrtic coast will be safe for some time, though).

It’s only $20-30 billions per year for maintenance, for all the carriers, that’s pocket money for the US. Sinking one of these would mean war with NATO. Many poor people hope for a WW3 because they envy Westerners but their leaders will always prefer the Dollar over certain death ;)

Solomon kupec is posting garbage again.

Zionist solomon is running scared of the day the U.S. sugar daddy finally falls, where would parasite Israel be without the U.S., there solomon kupec.

And they are vulnerable to the nukes, you forgot the nukes, dude!

It depends, Kuznetsov is probably very good at sinking US CVBG’s with its missiles. Everything else it sucks at, and in that, like projecting US military power to every corner and country of the world that isn’t called Russia or China US carriers do quite well. Since nuclear armed countries that are not called Pakistan and India are not that likely to go to war with each other Kutznetsov is basically useless to the Russians. It’s attempt to project Russian power into Syria was basically a joke. Whether or not the ship broke down on the way to Syria, its small airgroup could not do much inside Syria, any loss through accidents crippled its small size even further and the airgroup’s effectiveness actually increased when some of them were moved ashore because they could now take off with greater payloads.

Kuznetsov is a product of the Cold War, when the Soviet navy’s job was to sink as much NATO ships in order for the flow of US reinforcements to the battle in Germany to be stopped. Projecting Soviet power by parking a Soviet CVBG ashore of some brown country was not in its mission statement. In that sense Kuznetsov serves no purpose to the Russian navy of today. Frigates and destroyers can do the sink US carriers with massive missile spam also. Russia would do well to think over what it wants with this ship. It’s not really needed as an aircraft carrying missile cruiser, and as a floating airfield it is severely lacking. If it wants to project Russian power to other parts of the world that are not the US or NATO then its probably better to remove the large missile silos, increase the hangar deck and install some catapults on the damn thing. After all, the Chinese also employ a similar doctrine of using missile spam to fight the USN. They know that against the USN, pure carriers are useless. And yet they are building them anyway. Because I reckon they do seem to value them for the same way as the US uses them. Project power to the far corners of the world that are not 1st tier opponents.

Kuznetsov is not a pure aircraft carrier, besides aircraft the ship can fire antiship missiles, surface to air missiles, in a way it can be self sufficient without a great need of escorts. So Kuznetsov’s mission in Syria was not a smashing success, you have to consider that Mig 29k crews had to be trained and had limited experience operating from a carrier. Kuznetsov along with other large capital ships from the Soviet era are going to be remodernized using the latest technology and armaments, a Kuznetsov task force in the Mediteranean would be effective power projection for Northern Africa.

As far as the Chinese building carriers, they are doing so for a balanced approach in case of blue water warfare, not relying exclusively on the DF 21-26 carrier killer missiles, their carriers will have adequate escorts and probably outnumber the number of carriers US could deploy in the area. China with 4-5 carrier task forces along with the fortified and armed islands in South China Sea, and the DF 21-26 missiles would provide with more than a reasonable deterent to any US visions of invincibility.

The point remains, its a ship specialized for a certain role, at the expense of other roles. Optimized to fight NATO fleets in the North Atlantic, with the airgroup only necessary to defend its taskforce against NATO air attacks. For power projection, ship with a large Kalibr battery would be of equal value then Kuznetsov’s limited airgroup, and said ship would be a hell of a lot cheaper to operate.

They say a jack of all trades is a master of none, but specialists are of limited value outside of their specializations as well. The big US carriers may be of limited value in a conflict against Russia or China, for everything else they are pretty useful. Jack of all trades have their uses because the conditions that require specialists occur a hell of a lot less then the ones in which jack of all trades can still be a of use.

If the Russians want Kuznetsov to be of any other use then a US carrier killer they need to increase its airgroup’s effectiveness. And this is not a question of its pilots just needing more experience. It’s airgroup needs to gain the ability to take off with greater weapons and fuel loads. More fuel means more range, more payload means actual power projection. The ski jump has to go and be replaced with catapults. And if the airgroup can be doubled from its current 20+ to 40+ that would also mean more power projection. As it stands a battery of granit shipkiller missiles equals zero power projection in a deployment in the med bombing lets say ISIS Jihadis in Libya. And a single Kalibr missile probably costs more to take out a target then a single aircraft mission dropping a bomb on them.

I still think Russia needs to think what it wants to do with its navy. Defense of the homeland? Then Kuznetsov is not really needed. Any mix of frigates, destroyers and submarines armed with potent anti-ship missiles will do. Project power abroad akin to how NATO navies do it (as in bomb brown countries), then Kuznetsov needs to be become a full CATOBAR carrier and drop its missile batteries.

I do not see the Russians converting the Kuznetsov to CATOBAR carrier, I do not think they are interested in enlarging the air wing, because it would require heavier planes doing the surveillance, EW, awac work, they will remove the big missiles and replace them with Kalibr and Zircon, it is possible to make it into an helicopter carrier, or have a combo of helicopters and Suk33 that carry long range standoff weapons. The limited range of the Suk 33 because of fuel constraints would be compensated by an air launched Kalibr type missile or Zircon, extending the reach of the carrier to a minimum 1500 kms.

You can always use missiles, I agree, but I reckon a single aircraft mission to drop bombs costs less then launching a cruise missile at it. Those things are expensive. The Douma retaliation strike on Syria cost the US what? 750 million dollars? I reckon that’s the reason why Russia has used Kalibr only vary sparingly in the Syrian war, in total less were fired over the entire period of the Russian intervention then the US fired Tomahawks in a single ‘retaliatory strike’. Even the US doesn’t use them that much, always preferring to use aircraft instead. They’re only being used when the range is either too long for aircraft, or the environment is too dangerous for aircraft. Which in my POV kinda defeats the purpose of equipping a carrier with these missiles. Its purpose should be to carry aircraft, not the backup weapons in case aircraft cannot be used. That’s for the carrier’s support vessels.

Also long range standoff weapons for aircraft are heavy. Too heavy for an aircraft that has to use its own power to take off from a carrier.