by Leonid Nersisyan
Source: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2153071.html
Translated by: Seva
Russian heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be deployed this fall to the Mediterranean, near the shores of Syria. According to an informed military source, its aircraft will attack the positions of ISIS and other militant groups in Syria from October 2016 to January 2017. Interestingly, rumors that “Admiral Kuznetsov” would be sent to her first task circulated earlier, but they were denied after partial withdrawal of Russian military air forces from the base Hmeimim in Syria. It looks like the plans have changed again.
A “complicated” ship needs testing before deep modernization.
“Admiral Kuznetsov”, which was placed on duty in the Russian Navy in 1991, turned out to have problems. The reason for that was that it was planned as multi-functional – it functions as rocket-carrying cruiser (“Admiral Kuznetsov” is armed with 12 heavy anti-ship rockets P-700 “Granit”), as well as aircraft carrier. Compared to the US aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class, it is much smaller (water displacement 59,000 tons, as compared to 101,000) and can carry fewer aircraft – 50 (helicopters and planes) as compared to 66 (although, if needed, it can carry up to 90 aircraft).
In addition, as it was equipped with a springboard instead of steam catapult, “Admiral Kuznetsov” does not have airplanes for long-range radiolocation and command, because of which it “controls” a much smaller area than American aircraft carriers. The greatest problem of the only Russian aircraft carrier is its power generation: in contrast to Nimitz carriers that have nuclear reactors, “Admiral Kuznetsov” is equipped with boiler-turbine system, which turned out to be unreliable. Frequent breakdowns and long repairs became the norm. Another problem of unreliable propulsion system is that the ship cannot move at full speed for long, which is necessary for fighter planes to take off with full fuel tanks and full complement of weapons. Thus, planes take off either with limited fuel, or with reduced set of weaponry.
In addition, the number of aircraft on board never approached the nominal – as a rule, it carries 7-8 heavy deck fighters SU-33. These fighters can only dominate the air, whereas at land targets they can only use free-falling bombs and unguided air-to-surface missiles, as their radio-electronic equipment (REE) is the same as in the base model of SU-27, and these planes were not modernized.
The situation is partially improved by light fighter MiG-29K, which was first designed for the Indian Navy and then later ordered for the Russian Navy. This aircraft has modern REE, which allows the use of various air-to-surface munitions. Military sources tell us that “Admiral Kuznetsov” will sail to Syria with 15 airplanes (likely, 8 SU-33 and 7 MiG-29K) and about 10 helicopters (assault copters Ka-52K, multi-task Ka-27, and electronic surveillance and command copters Ka-31). In this configuration, the ship is ~50-60% filled with aircraft, which would allow it to fulfill at least training and combat mission in Syria. Small number of aircraft is largely due to lack of trained pilots for Navy aircraft.
Considering that in the Spring of 2017 “Admiral Kuznetsov” will undergo long overhaul and modernization, operation in Syria will be a good opportunity to identify its weakest points. This experience would allow optimal modernization of the ship and its aircraft complement. Combat experience of the pilots is also very important. This explains the appearance on “Admiral Kuznetsov” of assault helicopters Ka-52K, which were originally built for ill-fated Mistrales and are not suitable for a real aircraft carrier. Basically, the task is to test the equipment in real combat.
Considering that the numbers of combat aircraft at the airbase Hmeimim now are much lower than at the beginning of the operation, sorties of MiG-29K would be a positive contribution to the balance of power, but hardly a game changer. As to Su-33, they will likely ensure air cover for assault aircraft. Their own assault potential is unsuitable for the Syrian conflict.
What next?
In its present state, heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” is not an efficient force. Considering that the Russian Navy is unlikely to get an aircraft carrier before mid-2030-s (the building won’t start earlier than in 2025, and would take about 10 years), it is important to make “Admiral Kuznetsov” combat-ready. Even just to preserve personnel that can serve on such a ship and fight on it. If things are done right, “Admiral Kuznetsov” can be converted into a ship capable of fulfilling combat tasks at the level of the force based in Hmeimim in any point in the world. This would require several changes in the course of its modernization:
- Change the propulsion system. Ideally, it should be replaced with nuclear reactor. This would enable the ship to maintain full speed, so that aircraft would be able to take off with full payload, as well as increase reliability.
- Modernize fighters SU-33, equipping them with modern REE, like in SU-30CM or SU-35C. In this configuration 14 SU-33 and 12 MiG29K would be able to fulfill assault tasks and maintain domination in the air.
- Lighted the ship’s load by removing launch equipment for P-700 ‘Granit”, which, it is believed, are in non-working order after one of the accidents. It’s better for an aircraft carrier to be just an aircraft carrier.
- Install modern radio-electronic equipment.
- During the time of the overhaul and modernization, train enough deck aircraft pilots and update supply ships. Otherwise, it would be impossible to base on the ship 50 aircraft it is supposed to carry.
This modernization would take at least 4 years. However, the result would be essentially a new combat complex. Considering vague prospects of building new aircraft carriers (among other things, it is unclear whether this is needed, considering the state of ship-building industry and Russian geography), modernization can recreate “Admiral Kuznetsov” as a ship that can fulfill combat missions for another 40 years.
Su-33 is already in the Su-33M modernization, at least 4 machines are ready. Modernization is similar to the capabilities found in the Su-27SM and Su-30M2
So it’s not true that President Putin is sending the Kuznetsov to participate in the water ski jumping event at the summer Olympics in Rio?
Man, I going to raise some serious questions with my sources in Langley. They are all messed up in that place.
Wouldn’t be better to built 2 new subs than renovate this “wreck” ?
What I mean is that on open oceans Russian Navy has no chance against US/NATO Navy at all.
The only way to balance a huge gap is to strengthen the coastal defenses ( small frigates ) and build subs as a deterrent.
Nice point of view. Thank you.
Presumably you mean subs that can be used to launch aircraft that can cover airspace from east Greece to western Iran and from Crimea to north Saudi Arabia? That may take just a few years and make the F-35 look eminently sensible.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/3329110/3329110_original.jpg
The Russians also have naval Su-25 variants. Pilots have been training on the Kuznetsov simulator at the Saki airbase in Crimea.
Wreck or not, they may need it. US has 10 aircraft carriers. Russia has only 1.
Does anyone know why? Are aircraft carriers not effective? Are submarines a better answer? Or is just due to geography of Russia (ie. Russia being mostly a land power)?
Actually, aircraft carriers are effective for projection of military power at a distance from their command center. Their principal uses are infrastructure disruption, local air superiority, and support functions as a mobile attack/defense center either in defending bases under attack or attacking enemy forces to prevent attack. In WWII it was air craft carriers that proved the demise of battleships, and even submarines. Many of the later WWII convoys had ‘escort carriers’ that would catch submarines on the surface as the planes flew search patterns or would drop depth charges based on instructions from ASDIC equipped destroyers – but that was WWII.
Since WWII there has been a shift in power with substantially improved diesel/electric or nuclear submarines, and shipborn/land based hypersonic missles. The Russian/Chinese ‘sunburn’ and later variants are essentially ‘carrier killers’ as they have the ability to fly faster and lower than the US and other countries AAD (anti-aircraft defense) can target them. The ability now exists for any country using these to equip small frigates with sufficient missile technology to take on an aircraft carrier at much lower expense, or base these on land with mobile launchers.
In addition to these missiles, submarine stealth technology has improved so much that during a recent US exercise in the South China sea, a Chinese submarine surfaced inside the US task force – and it hadn’t been detected at all!
To answer your question – if a carrier can be properly defended (no small task) it can still be used for its’ original purposes – but the investment in the aircraft carrier can be defeated by less expensive technology by the defending nation. In effect, carriers are best used against countries that have little in the way of defensive infrastructure, although they may prove disruptive if they can be brought into target range of even well defended countries.
An asymmetrical strategy based on high speed intelligent missiles and torpedoes makes them sitting ducks. I’m not convinced they can shoot down the slower Mach capable missiles let alone the Mach 4 to 8 missiles that are coming into service. They are intelligent having loiter patterns, they accelerate to the target following a non uniform flight path. The close in weapon systems take an eternity (over 10 sec) to acquire/reacquire a target – assuming it is flying in a straight line. Maybe they get luck with one – what about a salvo of these missiles.
There are targets and there are subs. US carriers are only useful against countries with third military capabilities. Countries are doomed to fight the next war using the lessons of the last war.
Carriers are sitting ducks against first world military capabilities that includes a wide range of threats from subs to aircraft operating a wide range of advanced missiles and high speed torpedoes. Many of these weapons can be launched a couple of hundred kms outside the current defensive shield of the carriers from land, sea, sub and air assets.
Apparently the US military is trying figure out how to extend the range of carrier fighters. Bit of a pointless exercise. It is interesting to note that all the new platforms being developed by China and Russia are really missile platforms. The Russians are now testing a Mach 8 missile – 9,000+ Kmh which is 2700+ metres per second.
Then there are the subs…new Russian subs are very quiet apparently.
To sum up JackJC,
when you fight Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia and so on, they can be great.
When you fight Russia or China you might just sink them yourself and save your enemy the work of launching one supersonic missile.
No, they must renovate this “wreck”.
Meanwhile they will count with the help of their ally……
http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-chinas-new-aircraft-carrier-force-challenges-us-naval-hegemony/5519912
China Naval Modernization: Implications for
U.S. Navy Capabilities
—
Background and
Issues for Congress
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
The Chinese will simply out build the US.
Thanks for posting this.
The purpose of the US War Budget is to waste it. Our military industrial congressional complex is jumping up and down.
US Navy VS China Navy Comparison 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyKYE76_zDg
USA vs RUSSIA & CHINA Military Inventory Comparison | 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF-_hd72is8
I agree with your point of view; refurbishing Kuznetzov would be a costly mistake; for a small scale conflict, this ship would not be needed. For a major confrontation with US navy, having only one such ship is not enough. In any major confrontation, US is likely to engage Russia simultaniously from all major theaters of operations. Having the ship positioned – let us say- in the Barents sea, it would leave them relatively uncovered in east Mediterranean sea and off Okhotsk See in the Pacific Ocean.They would need at least three such ship to achieve the desired effect. They can probably achieve the same -if not more- with submarines and effective coastal missile defense systems.
Hi Bro. If you are a new commentor here, I would like to clarify for you and others that you are not me!
And that I shortened Bro Anon to “Bro” about 2-3 months ago, and used that “handle” many dozens of times, but have been out of commission nearly 2 weeks without home internet or time to go on there anywhere else, having to move my household some 35 miles.
To resolve this confusing “handle-sharing” issue, I would ask you whether you are too attached to choose another (least confusing option to those at all familiar with Bro (#1) handle, or whether that would be easy for you to do?
Depending on your response, or that of mods, by way of mediation/suggestions I think we can come to a reasonable resolution of any handle confusion and move forward from there.
As to your comment on the Kuznetsov carrier, I do have the same sort of questions but am content to follow the dialogue of those more expert on military hardware questions. In terms of super-power face-offs, carriers strike me as WW II hardware, mostly useful for moving fairly self contained power projection quickly into place hundreds or thousands of miles away into waters that are either well protected, or waters of weaker countries that can’t really threaten the carrier. Ergo, mostly a tool of Empire, but apparently not strictly so.
Still recovering from the move with a giant jig-saw puzzle of re-assembling things in a different house for weeks to come, but I will try to watch for anymore posts by you, Bro (#2) to follow up on the handle resolution matter! Thanks! Bro # 1, Bro Anon, etc……….
See the tine scale that rusdua is thibking of sending the ship to syria.
As if russians have alk the time in sorld to di something in syria.or may be just usesyria as a means to rest show their weapons but not bothering about what hapoens to syria
Why wait for october ?
It meabs russua has no ibtention to conclude the war in syrua.
Russian naval shipbuilding needs an overhaul. OK, fix this sucker up but do it in one year! None of this ‘oh, we take forever’ stuff. This is one crucial area in which Russia could outmatch the U.S. Kick those lazy engineers into serious action. Just do it.
Lol. Poor engineers :(
Wouldn’t robotic drone aircraft, with tiny radar cross sections be a serious threat to large, slow, naval surface targets? I’m envisioning a new kind of naval fleet: 1) Drones. 2) Submarine refueling. 3) Remote ship outside of battle-space, used for hanger duty, and drone maintenance..
These drones would be able to refuel, so their loiter time could be very long. Tiny radar cross sections, would allow them to be very hard or almost impossible to detect. Each drone carries maybe one smart missile in its internal weapons bay.
Perhaps a submarine pops up a few feet (a meter) out of the ocean to then refuel said drones, as drone small size allows them to take off and land on the submarine carrier deck.. Submarine carrier is designed to be small as possible with only a few human drone operators.
A large number of drones could assemble in a swarm, to deliver many missiles at naval targets.
Some of the missiles will get through, it is a numbers game. These missiles when launched will appear as if they came out of nowhere.
Drones and their missiles are a lot cheaper than a large naval ship, so it is an economics game too.
In this future world, an aircraft carrier is only good for sitting off shore as a floating air-base.
I’m probably wrong, but it seems to me that surface naval fleets are now obsolete.
There are some reports that new drone software using fuzzy logic can defeat expert pilots in dogfights, so air to air combat needs to be reconsidered as well.
This sort of naval drone system would play to a natural land power’s advantage (Russia), by denying surface fleet power projection of atlantacists.
It is also asymmetric response, in alignment with Russian doctrine.
I’d like to hear an expert military analysis of that. But it certainly does sound like an interesting set of ideas. Besides what you said about the “ability” of the drones. The cost of huge naval ships has grown so much that that alone might be a reason to seriously consider something like that. I remember reading that just the “maintenance” of a large carrier for one year is more than a billion dollars .
I was half expecting the Russians to use the Admiral Kuznetsov for this. A drone carrier, with technical crews, spare parts, communication and radar pickets (EW planes and helicopters), etc. More room to store more fuel (being non-nuclear). Less room needed for fighter pilots. Completely cut out the need to bounce signals to drones through satellite like the US does. Instead a drone-dedicated carrier can maintain communication directly with its drones (or through a signals aircraft to extend range; launched from the carrier itself).
The counter-argument to that would be of course that you’d be crowding a large portion of the EM spectrum. There is going to be an upper limit of how many drones you can actually deploy and maintain communication with at all time in a single geographic location.
A second theory would be a dedicated rotary-wing carrier. Lots of helicopters (assault, attack, transport, pickets, etc.), throw in a few hundred marines and you have yourself an air mobile division-style carrier. You could probably keep the compliment of air superiority Su-33 for carrier air patrols. I can’t remember where I read this but the Admiral Kuznetsov has a crew compliment of some ~1600 but has compartments to handle up to 2400 (don’t quote me on this, I’m trying to find the source again and failing).
The final theory was to turn it into a humanitarian and rescue vessel. Providing aid during natural disasters where conventional aid can’t reach. Extracting Russian nationals/diplomats in countries that have gone bat-**** crazy. A carrier is something that can carry a small set of assets (including special forces) that can help get embassy staff out of Benghazi-style situations.
I feel like the entire carrier was just a “we have a carrier too” type of moment. It felt like it was designed as a defensive carrier, to patrol the shores of Russia capable of providing a specific set of anti-naval assets using its 12 anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine warfare helicopters (18 of them compared to the 4 for radar picket or 2 for SAR). The compliment of Su-33s are mostly to defend the carrier itself.
But I suppose I’ll just settle for gaining experience in design and doctrine of operating a carrier.
When I say drone-dedicated carrier I don’t mean launching fighters to dogfight. The Su-33s will still do that. You can’t electronically jam a human pilot.
I mean a carrier designed to launch surveillance drones, the large stealth kind that stay in the air for a while with automation. More of strategic-operational surveillance, collecting not only EM emissions from a wide area but providing real-time vision of certain areas (thermal, night vision….)
I was hoping the Russians would use it for that. I can’t see any use for it asides from being a casino to be sold to the Chinese.
Not for Syria anyway…and without nuclear propulsion its very limited in range to be some expeditionary force support.
Not just drones in the air but also undersea drones that remain dormant until they detect a threat.
Can China Sink a US Aircraft Carrier?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/01/23/can-china-sink-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier/#301f347074fa
US Aircraft Carriers Obsolete, Vulnerable to New Missiles
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151104/1029588894/us-aircraft-carriers-become-obsolete.html
Are The Aircraft Carriers Obsolete?
http://worldofdefense.blogspot.mx/2011/05/are-aircraft-carriers-obsolete.html
The future of naval warfare: Are US supercarriers useless?
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/are-the-us-navy-supercarriers-useless-1484497670
Retired US Navy captain: The centerpiece of the Navy’s future doubles down on a 20-year-old strategic mistake
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-of-the-us-navy-2015-10
A new Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile is bad news for US aircraft carriers
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-growing-military-power-may-make-us-aircraft-carriers-obsolete-2015-10
The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/01/undersea-warfare/
Interesting article on the AK. Several things listed in the “What next?” section I disagree with, though.
1. Converting the ship to nuclear would require a major redesign and would entail a huge cost. It may not even be reasonably feasible. I’m not aware of any ship that was converted to nuclear propulsion after having been built for conventional. Also I am not sure the existing system on board would need to be chaged. The author failed to support their claims of unreliability. The Russians are fully capable of either fixing or replacing any parts of the existing propulsion system with conventional equipment, should this still really be needed.
3. Remaking the ship “american style”. This ignores the fact she was never designed with that in mind and would make a poor usn style attack carrier. She is too small to carry the necessary air compliment for this role, and even more importantly, is not built for the role. This latter means a major gutting of the ship internally, which may not be a reasonable engineering feat.
AK was designed with a completely different naval strategy in mind from usn attack carriers. These latter are mostly defenseless aluminum cans without their aircraft. Their aircraft are their main offensive and defensive elements. AK is a large cruiser with a defensive air compliment. Her aircraft are to provide cap and a/s defense. Her offensive capability centred around her cruise missile compliment.
Those cruise missiles could probably be replaced with modern weapons, such as those now famous Almaz-Antey cruise missiles used against zionazi run terrorists in Syria, launched by small vessels from the Caspian. Such missiles would allow the ship to effectively attack both sea and land targets, and being more compact in their installation, allow a greater number to be mounted. With or without a modernised multi-role air compliment, such a missile equipment refit would greatly enhance the ship’s capability.
Converting the ship to operate drones, as a commenter suggested could maybe be useful, provided such aircraft can be made “tamper proof”. Remember the american drone the Iranians took over electronically and captured? Converting her into a helicopter assault ship seems a waste, though. For that all one needs is a Mistral type, at 1/3 the displacement, because the ship is essentially a troopship and a hanger for helicopters. As with a conversion to a usn style attack carrier, it would be impractical, though because it would be an impractible step down, rather than an impractible step up.
The AK is already more than 25 years old. Expensive and extensive rebuilds of ships this old often produced an inferior vessel to that can be built for the same cost.
That is an interesting point about the drones. The US big notes ‘network centric warfare’ but if this is disrupted then the whole thing falls apart. I found some links to Chinese sites a while ago and research papers on the NATO secure coms standard. These papers were dated early 2000. It seems the Chinese and probably Russians have been investing in strategies to jam and disrupt coms.
One major point that the author ignores in his comments about converting the AK to a sole use Aircraft Carrier is that it would be prevented from entering or leaving the Black Sea under the 1936 Treaty of Montreaux. This Treaty is the major reason that the Soviets built “Heavy Aircraft-carrying Cruisers”.
As for the survivability of an Aircraft Carrier, that is the task of the Support Group. In the language of Submariners, Carriers are merely “targets”. Many times during RIMPAC exercises, US Carriers have been “sunk” by RAN Submarines. US Umpires would always deny the “kill”. One Skipper got so “pissed-off” with this that he surfaced alongside the Carrier and fired a flare pistol onto the flight deck. Caused a major incident, but got the point across.
And Carriers do not have to be massive or overly expensive. A look at the Majestic Class shows a less than 20,000 ton Carrier that performed multiple roles in multiple Navies.
Even accepting the robust logic that in the present scenario, Aircraft Carriers are not effective due to anti-ship missiles, my two simple questions are:
(1) Why Russia has not planned for 3 Aircraft Carriers, one each for north Pacific, Baltic Sea & north Atlantic, Black Sea & Mediterranean area
(1) Why China has not planned for 3 Aircraft Carriers, one each for south Pacific, South China Sea, Indian Ocean
The Aircraft Carriers need not behave as invading force as USA does with CSG, they can simply act as defensive outposts.
I think I read somewhere that China did have plans for building several more carriers. As for Russia I agree that they could use them. But it may be a funding issue as to why they aren’t doing that now. Another issue that concerns me is the time issue. It seems these ships take years to build (why I’m not really sure). But I’ve heard Russia plans on another “new” carrier to be built by 2025.That is “9” years in the future. The way things are going they may be at war within 2 years. I think counting on armaments build-ups that come into being way in the future is possibility very optimistic.I would be pressing my military contractors for 24/7 work schedules for the new armaments needed.And I’m not talking about prototypes and one only. But a whole range and in multiple numbers. Having built one great prototype,or even 5 of one type of plane or tank is good. But when your opponent has 100 or 500 of a “fairly good ” plane or tank. That gives them the decided edge in battle.In modern military equipment ,numbers “do” matter.Hence the need to be working quickly to get your equipment built and in service.Just what on a plane or a tank or a ship would make it take years to build. There are 365 days in a year,52 full weeks,12 full months. If its true (the big question) what we hear about the Western aggression against Russia. Than everyone of those days,weeks,and months,should be used ,working overtime to fill the gaps in the equipment difference.
Uncle Bob 1,
I can’t agree more with you … In fact, I can feel what’s going on in your mind when you write “There are 365 days in a year,52 full weeks,12 full months” – because, I also count the same way that in a year one gets 24 hours multiplied by 365 days ! Why then, it takes so much time…
If we think rationally, army and air-force of Russia has enough machinery, nuclear/conventional missiles, and ammunition to repel any attack… But, when you do a serious simulation of war scenario in Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea, i’m afraid, you can easily come to a conclusion that ‘power projection throughout the theatre is not possible only by submarines and frigates ! Russia need at least 3 Aircraft Carriers badly …
Finally, the Liberal leadership under Medvedev will be happy to come to an understanding with the AZ cabal (with whatever conditionality they want), but if Russia continue to tread on independent foreign and domestic policy as it is doing under President Putin’s guidance, it will not be even two years when we can expect a full-scale WW III initiation in Europe.
Uncle Bob 1,
PS: I’m not very optimistic about Chinese building up their naval power – not that I have doubt in their engineering capabilities (particularly they are excellent in consumer goods engineering).
But as a whole there has to be a ‘work culture’/’background’ or whatever you may term it, which is not there in China so far as their MIC is concerned. Chinese got a lot of help from Russian MIC for their 5th gen fighter (MiG 1.44) as well as hypersonic missiles, (even their current aircraft carrier is old USSR ship) – but for modern advanced nuclear powered aircraft carriers, I am not so sure, how far China can do it without heavy support from Russian engineering…
Yes,and I was (am?) expecting them to get that support from Russia. In fact that would be an interesting idea for Russia. Using the Chinese “industrial workshops” that “already” exist to build some of the projects,using Russian engineering.In the long run of course Russia needs to build her own for those things. But in a “crunch” for time. The Chinese “could” (if they will) help greatly with that. And they would certainly benefit themselves from that cooperation.
some interesting thoughts here:
my thoughts are that investment in the kuznetzov carrier and future carrier design is
0. a hedge against chief operating assumption that the carriers are becoming obsolete
1. an invesment in shipbuilding infrastructure generally, as well as heavy defense industrial tech generally, in the same way that a man practicing kendo with a wooden staff might acquire combat proficiency improvements even if wooden staff not a weapon in a firefight. the benefits are holistic, and transfer across domains. chess historically evidenced a similar dynamic in the more intellectual realms of the spectrum. in the context of kuznetzov carrier and defense industrial base consider the benefits of solving the electromagnetic catapult, institutional cultural maturity associated with proficient deck aviation operations. carriers are more than the sum of their strategic agency == function of aggregate operational & tactical whatnot.
_____________________________________
nevertheless, it is strategic agency that is premeir responsibility profesional to maximise, the cleric of State whether in Industry or Ministry.
here the carriers don’t score so highly. counterfactuals are highly important. people have no ability with counterfactuals and so damn them, and then they go lose themselves in game of thrones and alcohol.
Consider::::
a counterfactual: usa eliminated 2/3 of nimitz carrier fleet budget over last 4 decades and spent that money on aerial refueling infrastructure, strategic bomber development (the B1 line especially), strategic airborne forces development. possibilities: such as making the Marine Corps an airborne 1st institution in direct beneficial-redundancy + competitive dynamic with RDF 82Airborne, Ranger, JSOC & cetera.
interservice financial restrictions eliminated to allow the Navy with competing strategic land based air assets possibly.
i won’t attempt to make the full (technical) case in comment but:
i Assert::::
USA strategic power would be vastly greater circa 2005-2015 than it was in our co-factual experience. Operations like the invasion of Iraq could have taken place over the course of weeks not years, as the build up to major operations is a flight preparedness, invasion takes place on an air operations tempo, and withdrawal takes place on an air operations tempo. preparatory bombardment, sead, air superiority, and tailor tactical air strike service are possible with the enhanced refueling infrastructure and fleet of improved Lancers. remember, we got maybe a 300 billion at least over some years, spread across industry and service, so that’s a lot of bombers.
carriers provide a forward base with associated logistical benefits. it’s cheaper faster and better to fly an A-10 out of a forward base than a B1 from (somewhere, maybe continental USA, maybe somewhere closer). the carriers are supposed to provide this advantage without reliance on terrestrial territory, but they are too vulnerable to kills (they are a valuable target in an age where dispersion of value is essential for survival — redundant, decoupled, dispersed systems.)
so the winning mix is strategic aviation together with an economizing opportunistic acqisition tactic of taking terrestrial bases and turning them into theatre forward airbases– syria operation by RuAF a nice lightweight (because not necessiting airdrop secure from hostile forces) exercise in this doctrine. an Airborne version of Admiral Nimitz and MacAurthurs Seabees and Island hopping methods.
As Keegan said years ago, and I think he remains correct, submarines are too rule the waves, whilst above the waves will rule the aircraft. The Aircraft, and not the aircraft-carriers. Those are to be more like the battle-axe and kendo staff, relegated to the museums. A few more years we’ll see them, like New Jersey firing 16 inch guns against Beirut, a theatre of fire. GWB admin found the aircraft carriers chief agency in the photo-op. It’s a grandeurous stage prop, and a reasonably well-functioning bludgeon against 3rd world basketcases, but against the modern first world arsenal is, perhaps defensible to a small degree with the absolute most advanced systems, but at what cost ?, and with what associated benefit ? Not much benefit, horrendous cost, and even then, it will probably be taken out by the 6 or 7 Zircons or whatever that did make it through.
_____________________________________________________________________
So the Russians face the same calculus when allocating assets. if they want strategic agency in the articulated conventional realm, to the global scale, they will invest the greater capital concentration to strategic aviation generally, and strategic airborne forces specifically to the global scale.
the chinese also grok this, and that’s why you are hearing crazy numbers about the Y-20. that they’re going to need “at least 1000”. that means the chinese will be ready to put a mechanised corps of elite troops into Nigeria in 48 hours, into Brazil in 48 hours, whatever. into Syria in 48 hours. and out. in 48 hours. that’s strategic maneuver. mass and speed.
in brass tacks terms this means transports and tankers for the airbornes, lots and lots of both.
for the strategic aviators, it’s blackjacks/whiteswans, Lancers, and whatever else is newer. B2 or whatever. you need to give the heavies some air-to-air capabilities, so retrofit the Tu-160 for AirDominance role is a viable research project. probably stragically auspicious. stuff like that. su-34s tanked up could also provide intercontinental air-superiority missions on the strength of pilots being able to sleep in-route in shifts. of course UAVs are part of the equation as well…
So if the Russians are investing in Kuznetsov and future carrier developments it’s part maskirovska and partly those two reasons outlined above.
just my opinion, rendered in the most improvisational ad-hoc way imaginable.
cheers!
Is There Enough Dirt to Go Around?
Russia and Turkey guarantee their ownership of dirt and all caucasus current dirt owners against all terrorists or border changes.
South Stream through Turkey.
Kurdistan is created out of current holdings, some ISIS holdings in Iraq and Kurdish dominated parts of Syria.
Israel ordered out of Syrian property including Golan.
Russia could build a JV flat-top with China or India and port it in India or Camh-Ran Bay rather than base it in a Russian port.
CRIMEA is a carrier that even ten Nimitz Class carries are no match.
This is on of the reason that NATO/US can’t forget it and talk about ….
Russian really screw up in Ukraine, however the punishment ain’t that bad, CRIMEA is RUSSIA now for good.
Hurrrraaaaaa !
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/does-canadas-decision-to-cut-off-ukraine-from-184418723.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw
Canada has stopped providing murderous Ukie army with satellite imagery.
HALLELUJA: Crusade of Peace is marching towards Kiev, over 1 Million expected. Junta in panic