Is there a future for Russian aircraft carriers?

[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Those following the news from Russia have probably heard that Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (official name: Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), was put into dry dock for major repairs and retrofits. Things did not go well. First, the dry dock sank (it was Russia’s biggest) and then a huge crane came crashing down on the deck. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship killing 2 and injuring more. With each setback, many observers questioned the wisdom of pouring huge sums of money into additional repairs when just the scheduled ones would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time.

Actually, the damage from the fire was not as bad as expected. The damage from the crane was, well, manageable. But the loss of the only huge floating dry dock is a real issue: the Kuznetsov cannot be repaired elsewhere and these docks cost a fortune.

But that is not the real problem.

The real problem is that there are major doubts amongst Russian specialists as to whether Russia needs ANY aircraft carriers at all.

How did we get here?

A quick look into the past

During the Soviet era, US aircraft carriers were (correctly) seen as an instrument of imperial aggression. Since the USSR was supposed to be peaceful (which, compared to the USA she was, compared to Lichtenstein, maybe less so) why would she need aircraft carriers? Furthermore, it is illegal to transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus with an aircraft carrier and yet the only shipyard in the USSR which could built such a huge ship was in Nikolaev, on the Black Sea. Finally, the Soviets were acutely aware of how vulnerable US aircraft carriers are to missile attacks, so why build such an expensive target, especially considering that the Soviet Union had no AWACS (only comparatively slow, small and much less capable early warning helicopters) and no equivalents to the F-14/F-18 (only the frankly disappointing and short range Yak-38s which would be very easy prey for US aircraft).

Eventually, the Soviets did solve these issues, somewhat. First, they created a new class of warships, the “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: under the flight deck, these Soviet aircraft carriers also held powerful anti-ship missiles (however, this was done at the cost of capacity under the deck: a smaller wing and smaller stores). Now, they could legally exit the Black Sea. Next, they designed a very different main mission for their “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: to extend the range of Russian air defenses, especially around so called “bastion” areas where Russian SSBNs used to patrol (near the Russian shores, say the Sea of Okhotsk or the northern Seas). So while the Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser were protecting Russian subs, they themselves were protected by shore based naval aviation assets. Finally, they created special naval variants for their formidable MiG-29s and Su-27s. As for the AWACS problem, they did nothing about it at all (besides some plans on paper). The collapse of the USSR only made things worse.

The Soviets also had plans for a bigger, nuclear, aircraft carriers, and on paper they looked credible, but they never made it into production. These supposed “super carriers” would also come with a truly “super” price…

So how good was/is the Kuznetsov?

Well, we will probably never find out. What is certain, however, is that she is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers, even their old ones, and that the USA has always been so far ahead of the USSR or Russia in terms of carriers and carrier aviation that catching up was never a viable option, especially not when so many truly urgent programs needed major funding. Did the Kuznetsov extend the range of Russian air defenses? Yes, but this begs the question of identity of the “likely adversary”. Not the USA: attacking Russian SSBNs would mean total war, and the U.S. would be obliterated in a few short hours (as would Russia). I don’t see any scenario in which US ASuW/ASW assets would be looking for Russian SSBNs anywhere near the Russian coasts anyway, this would be suicidal. What about smaller countries? This is were the rationalizations become really silly. One Russian (pretend) specialist even suggested the following scenario: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt takes power, thousands of Russian tourists are arrested and the Islamists demand that Russia give full sovereignty over to all Muslim regions of Russia, if not: then hundreds of Russians will get their throats slit on Egyptian TV. Can you guess how an aircraft carrier would help in this situation?

Well, according to this nutcase, the Russian carrier would position itself off the Egyptian coast, then the Russians would send their (pretty small!) air-wing to “suppress Egyptian air defenses” and then the entire Pskov Airborne Division would be somehow (how?!?!?!) be airlifted to Egypt to deal with the Ikhwan and free the Russian hostages.

It makes me wonder what this specialist was smoking!

Not only does it appear that the Egyptians are currently in negotiations with Moscow to acquire 24+ brand new Su-35s (which can eat the Russian airborne aircraft for breakfast and remain hungry for more), but even without these advanced multi-role & air superiority fighters the rest of the Egyptian air defenses would be a formidable threat for the relatively old and small (approx.: 18x Su-33; 6x MiG-29K; 4x Ka-31; 2x Ka-27) Russian airwing. As for airlifting the entire 76th Guards Air Assault Division – Russia simply does not have the kind of transport capabilities to allow it to do that (not to mention that Airborne/Air Assault divisions are NOT trained to wage a major counterinsurgency war by themselves, in a large and distant country). Theories like these smack more of some Russian version of a Hollywood film than of the plans of the General Staff of Russia.

Back to the real world now

Frankly, the Kuznetsov was a pretty decent ship, especially considering its rather controversial design and the appalling lack of maintenance. She did play an important role in Syria, not thanks to her airwing, but to her powerful radars. But now, I think that it is time to let the Kuznetsov sail into history: pouring more money in this clearly antiquated ship makes no sense whatsoever.

What about new, modern, aircraft carriers?

The short answer is: how can I declare that the USN has no rational use left for its aircraft carriers and also say that the Russian case is different and that Russia does need one or perhaps several such carriers? The USN is still several decades ahead of modern Russia in carrier operations, and (relatively) poor and (comparatively) backward Russia (in naval terms) is going to do better? I don’t think so.

Then, there is one argument which, in my opinion, is completely overlooked: while it is probably true that a future naval version of the Su-57s (Su-57K?) would be more than a match for any US aircraft, including the flying brick also knows as F-35, Russia STILL has nothing close to the aging but still very effective carrier-capable USN Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Yes, Russians have excellent radars and excellent airframes, but it is one thing to have the basic capabilities and quite another to effectively integrate them. As always, for Russia, there is the issue of cost. Would it make sense to finance an entire line of extremely costly aircraft for one (or even a few) aircraft carriers?

We need to keep in mind that while Russia leads the world in missile technology (including anti-shipping missiles!), there are many countries nowadays who have rather powerful anti-ship missiles too, and not all are so friendly to Russia (some may be at present, but might change their stance in the future). Unless Russia makes a major move to dramatically beef-up her current capabilities to protect a high-value and very vulnerable target like a hypothetical future aircraft carrier, she will face the exact same risks as all other countries with aircraft carriers currently do.

A quick look into the future

Hypersonic and long range missiles have changed the face of naval warfare forever and they have made aircraft carriers pretty much obsolete: if even during the Cold War the top of the line U.S. carriers were “sitting ducks”, imagine what any carrier is today? The old saying, “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind. Furthermore, what Russia needs most today are, in my opinion, more multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN (like the Yasen), more diesel-electric attack submarines SSK (like the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), more advanced patrol boats/frigates (like the Admiral Kasatonov), more small missile ships/corvettes (like the Karakurt), more large assault ships (like the Petr Morgunov) and many, many, more.

As for aircraft carriers, they are not needed any more to extend the (already formidable) Russian air defenses and in the power-projection role (operations far from Russia), the Russian Navy does not have the capabilities to protect any carrier far away from home shores.

Which leaves only three possible roles:

1) “Showing the flag”, i.e. make port calls to show that Russia is as “strong” and “advanced” as the US Navy. Two problems with that: i) the USN is decades ahead of Russia in carrier operations and 2) there are MUCH cheaper way to show your muscle (the Tu-160 does a great job of that).

2) “Retaining the carrier know-how”. But for what purpose? What naval strategy? What mission? Russia is the nation that made aircraft carriers obsolete – why should she ignore her own force planning triumphs?

3) Prestige and $$$ allocation to select individuals and organizations within and next to the Russian Navy. Since Russia does not have a money-printing-press or criminally bloated budgets, she simply cannot afford the capital outlay either for the Russian Navy, or for the nation of Russia, just to fill the pockets of some interested parties.

Conclusion:

If I have missed something, please correct me. I don’t see any role for carriers in the future Russian Navy. That is not to say that I am sure that they won’t be built (there are constant rumors about future Russian “super” carriers, no less!), but if they are built, I believe that it will be for all the wrong reasons.

The plight of the Kuznetsov might be blessing for Russia. She was a good ship (all in all), but now she should be viewed as an object lesson to (hopefully) kill any plans to build more carriers for the Russian Navy.

The Saker

Biswapriya Purkayastha on December 28, 2019 · at 5:24 am EST/EDT

The Kuznetsov was never a good ship because she was built for the wrong role and was obsolete before she was even laid down. Even if she had had proper maintenance she would always have been a ridiculous floating white elephant.

Why?

The purpose of the Kuznetsov was to provide fleet defence in the case of a WWII style naval conflict. Apparently the Soviet designers of the 1970s-80s still expected a Battle of the Coral Sea/Leyte Gulf/Okinawa or at least a Hunt the Bismarck style situation, which of course was patently absurd. Naval battles of the old style are over; everyone could see that as long ago as Korea.

But like the old 1930s aircraft carrier designs, which routinely included cruiser-sized gun turrets for defence against surface threats, the Soviet designers packed their aircraft-carrying ships with missiles, with the air wing almost an afterthought. This made the extremely bad class of ships known as the Kiev Class “aircraft carrying cruiser”; not very effective as cruisers, because of having to waste space on an air wing, and extremely ineffective as carriers, because the small flat deck meant for Yak 38s and helicopters hardly accomodated anything like a viable air group. Apparently this design philosophy, if one can give it such a title, forgot that for the carrier the air wing was supposed to be the purpose of its existence, and the ship’s aircraft, along with escorts, would protect it.

This has next to nothing to do with the Montreux Convention that regulated passage through the Bosphorus, as Saker claims. After all, when the USSR finally decided to build a genuine aircraft carrier, the Ulyanovsk class, where was it laid down? The same Ukraine shipyards as the ridiculous “aircraft carrying cruisers,” that’s where. And there was absolutely nothing stopping the USSR from building more shipyards capable of constructing carriers elsewhere, if Montreux was such an insurmountable obstacle.

Obviously, therefore, Montreux was not an obstacle and the USSR’s choice to build “aircraft carrying cruisers” was a deliberate one, not one forced on it.

It was not as though the USSR didn’t actually know the value of carriers. Stalin had ordered carrier construction in the 1930s but it was interrupted by WWII. After that the USSR again initiated carrier designs in the 1950s, only to be scotched by Khrushchev. And when it finally built the Moskva class helicopter carriers in the 60s and the Kiev class in the 70s/80s, it was in the teeth of demands to build genuine carriers like the Amerikastani ones. Had it built real carriers, by now it would have had enough experience with them to have been not far behind the Amerikastanis. Instead, of course, it is now decades behind even China, which had no carrier at all until 2011.

Then, the primary reason why the Kuznetsov’s air group is ineffective, and will remain ineffective no matter what the aircraft it would carry: the ski jump chosen as the launching method, instead of catapults. This again goes back to the idea that battle damage might render a catapult ineffective, but a ski jump will stay in action: any such battle,of course, has been extinct since WWII. A ski jump can only launch aircraft with high thrust to weight ratios; a fighter, no matter how good, can only take off with a fraction of its maximum load of weapons and fuel. Again, this was to be remedied in the Ulyanovsk with catapults like Amerikastani carriers….and, yes, let’s look at that E2C Hawkeye Saker mentions.

The USSR knew all about the Hawkeye and had designed a similar AWACS aircraft, the Yak 44, which would have been launched by catapult from the Ulyanovsk and its successors. Unfortunately the aircraft, after reaching the mock-up stage, was cancelled at the murder of the Soviet Union.

None of this is mentioned by Saker; either he does not know of it or he is not mentioning it for reasons of his own. Either he is not eligible to write this article or he is being dishonest.

As far as the corvettes Saker loves so, here are the problems with them:

1. They are small ships with small ordnance loads. Russia is now incapable of building even the Lider Class destroyer, which would have had a reasonable range and size. Therefore any enemy which stays out of easy range of a corvette’s missiles or has the ability to shoot down ten or fifteen missiles has rendered the corvette useless.

2. Corvettes can’t even adequately defend themselves: they have either to stay in the coastal zone, protected by coastal air and sea defences (in which case they might as well be land based) or they have to go on suicide missions into airspace controlled by enemy aeroplanes launched by, well, aircraft carriers.

3. Shooting missiles at ISIS in Syria from the Caspian Sea is a *little* different from shooting missiles at an Amerikastani battle group.

When did Russia ever use carriers in combat? Well….in Syria, where the Kuznetsov had to do what? Fulfil the exact same role as Amerikastani aircraft carriers, that is, power projection ashore.

And why should Russia then need carriers? I can think of these scenarios:

1. Economic warfare by NATO short of all out full scale war. Amerikastan last year was already babbling about militarily blockading Russia. That would not be difficult since Russia’s geography means every single one of its ports, without exception, is covered by geographic chokepoints at a distance from its shores. What will Russia do if the Baltics are blockaded, and the Bosphorus, and the Sea of Japan? Go to full WWIII mode? Somehow I do not think so. Yet unless it has carriers to break the blockade, it has no other option (assuming it does not want to surrender).

2. Force projection ashore in support of an ally, as in Syria.

3. As the Arctic ice melts, Russia will have to choose between defending its exclusive economic zone there or have it looted by NATO pirates. If it chooses to defend its zone, it will either have to depend on an enormous number of shore based installations, on the inhospitable Siberian landmass, or to use a few carriers, each of which can control a huge area of ocean. Which do you think is the more logical option?

4. To deter war. Amerikastani politicians are military illiterates. Amerikastani generals and admirals are political toadies. The reality of aircraft carrier obsolescence, assuming that is a reality (something I do not accept, as i have stated above) does not matter to them. A Russia without aircraft carriers to them simply means a weaker Russia, one that can be more easily pushed around without a too great risk of war. Is or is not it true that when Amerikastani “missile defences” were placed in Poland “against Iran”, in 2013-14, Amerikastanis immediately started talking about a “winnable” nuclear war and “destroying all of Russia’s missiles in the boost phase”? Is it or is it not true that the fixed ambition of Amerikastan is to destroy and subjugate Russia? Is it or is it not true that if Russia depends on its hypersonic missiles to protect itself, it only has the choice between WWIII and destruction, or capitulation?

And given that according to Amerikastanis themselves aircraft carriers are a powerful tool of geopolitical leverage, will a Russian carrier fleet not at least give Amerikastan pause in any attempt to impose facts on the ground,or more accurately, on the seas?

Of course it will.

Why do you imagine the Chinese are so frantically building aircraft carriers – real carriers, not “aircraft carrying cruisers”, please note – if carriers are obsolete?

All this is not to say that the Kuznetsov needs saving. In fact the earlier that heap of junk is scrapped the better. It is, however, to say that Russia can justify a carrier fleet on perfectly utilitarian grounds, not just as a vanity project.

Having said that, if Russia wants to buy more carriers, what can it do? Build them? Perish the thought. Russian incompetence at shipbuilding is incredible and staggering. It, in fact, cannot even measure up to the ability of the USSR to build ships in the 1960s. It is too incompetent to even build a destroyer. It hasn’t even been able to raise the sunken dry dock or construct another yet, though it desperately needs it, and not just for the Kuznetsov. Build a carrier? Don’t make me laugh.

Given that, the only practical answer is to pay* China, already decades ahead of Russia in shipbuilding and blazing further ahead by the minute, to build carriers, and destroyers, and perhaps cruisers, for the Russian Navy. It’s either that or become even more of a laughing stock than it already is.

*Not necessarily in money; China would welcome Russian turbines, aircraft engines, electronics and weapons, as well as carrier borne aircraft.

135 Comments

Larchmonter445 on December 26, 2019 · at 1:45 pm EST/EDT

No role for carriers ends the discussion.

Missiles ends the need for planes on a carrier.

And if things change and someone comes up with strategic need for carriers, the simple solution is buy them from China; and it could be a barter deal–3 carriers for natural gas, wheat, soy beans and fresh water (and lots of Russian ice cream for President Xi Jinping).

The Chinese shipyards could turn out 3 carriers simultaneously in three years, all commissioned together.
Russian and Chinese planes for them. A coordination of military weapons production that would scare the bejezus out of the Pentagon, Japan, and the rainbow underwear-bozos of NATO.

Back to reality, I am a huge believer in missiles, and the Russians have missiles of such a variety and launch pad systems so multiplicitous that they have zero need for carriers.

Syrian war and reconciliation operations and the incredible talents of Russian diplomatic corps, military specialists, General Staff, Chechen MPs, humanitarian services has projected Russian power, alongside, Aerospace forces, jet plane capabilities, EW systems and S-300 and S-400 missile/drone/plane defenses.

The whole world sees the quality of Russian men and machines, planning and execution.

The endless march of nations to genuflect in the Kremlin and beg for Putin’s assistance in their countries trials and tribulations since 2015 is testimony to Russia as SuperPower. All done without a state of the art aircraft carrier.

Save the money, buy submarines, perfect the Su-57 with its new engine, and keep pushing the envelope with EW and radars.
- Olivier on December 26, 2019 · at 8:09 pm EST/EDT
  
  I just wonder why the Chinese keep building up their own carrier force. In light of their own ASBM program (DF21, DF26) this effort seems difficult to explain.
  - Srbalj on December 26, 2019 · at 9:27 pm EST/EDT
    
    China faces the threat of a vast US naval deployment in the event of a war, Obama’s “Asia Pivot” was a harbinger of the way the US has war gamed their combat strategy – overwhelm China’s east coast & support an insurrection in the west, Xinjiang & Tibet. Missiles can only do so much to deter a blitzkrieg style attack, the US airforce would punch its way through China’s defences & strategically bomb their missile launch sites. That’s how they would plan it anyway, so China basically envisages taking the battle to them in the Pacific, by deploying its own air craft carriers & launching their airforce to dogfight above the ocean. It would be a first line of defence by going on the offensive in the Pacific, plus, the US Navy would attempt to blocade the south China sea & inflict trade sanctions on China to starve them – or try. Also, by developing its own aircraft carrier fleet, China is actually employing a deterrent, they are basically sending a message that the Chinese coast line will be well defended. It’s a matter of where the vulnerability lies, for China it is the east coast, for Russia its the so-called “underbelly”, an attack from the south, central Asia, so for Russia an aircraft carrier fleet is not necessary, because their vulnerability is the land invasion route. From the west its the old Barbarossa route to Petersburg & the north Caucausus via Ukraine, which is why the Donbass war was so strategically important & returning Crimea essential.
    - Anaam on December 26, 2019 · at 10:55 pm EST/EDT
      
      I don’t believe you’re right about any scenario involving Chinese carrier battle groups engaging American carrier battle groups: it would be a turkey shoot where the Chinese carrier battle groups would end up at the bottom of the sea in no time at all. Did you read the article? The United States is generations ahead of Russia in carrier technology and carrier operations and russia is generations ahead of China in naval technology and naval operations. Therefore the technological and operations lead the USA has over China in aircraft carriers is so huge it’s not even funny. Remember, the Chinese carriers are copies of Soviet designs and they are not built as well or as sturdy or reliable as a Russian built boat, and, as importantly, Chinese naval crews are very inexperienced compared to both the Russian and Americans. Besides the Chinese are too smart to fight a battle on the terms of their enemy or where the environment favors their enemy (its one of the axioms in the sun tzu bing fa: avoid combat where the terrain favors the enemy).
      
      Again, the article starts out by stating the premise that aircraft carriers are instruments of imperial aggression, therein lies the clue as to what the real purpose for Chinese carriers: not to be used not against a first world navy like that of the United States (which would be suicide), but to be used against weak recalcitrant smaller states that China has investments and personnel in (such as in Africa and nations with Islamist insurgencies in the Indian Ocean littoral), including on their string of pearls. In addition, if China builds out naval bases thru out the Pacific Ocean and in parts of the East African coast on the Indian Ocean, this might be part of their rational to provide leverage in case there are color revolutions in those countries (and island nations).
      - TomM on December 27, 2019 · at 4:42 am EST/EDT
        
        Anaam,
        Probably USA is generations ahead of Russian and Chinese long distance navy but what about the “officers” and their training in USA. Is it true that navy USA officers are trained from CD/DVDs as result of cost saving efforts?
        As I remember, the only ships that recently sucessfully damaged US navy ships are tankers/cargo ships.
        Also, which navy (carrier group) allow to be suprised by fly-over of the opponent airplanes ? Answer-US navy.
        
        Anaam on December 27, 2019 · at 10:09 am EST/EDT
        
        @TomM,
        
        Underestimating the overwhelming strength of the US Navy (USN) isn’t going make it weaker relative to your navy, quite the opposite is true.
        
        Anecdotal incidents of screwups by individuals in USN operations proves nothing: I believe there was an article by Saker that outlined even worse screwups by the Russian navy, but he also pointed out it wasn’t representative of the overall competence of the Russian navy (I could be off on some details, but that is what my memory tells me). Let’s just look at the embarrassing screw ups Saker pointed out in this article (falling crane, sunken dry dock, a fire, etc, etc), or let’s look at the fact that two fighter planes (su-35s) crashed during carrier operations, in just a 3 week period with the kuzetnov (link: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a24155/kuznetsov-second-crash-in-three-weeks/), are we supposed to jump to the conclusion that the entire Russian must be incompetent? No, I don’t think so (but it would make Russian military planners very happy if their western counterparts came to that erroneous conclusion).
        
        As far as training of officers for the USN is concerned, if the scenario you outline is true, it changes very little: real training in Operations happens on the job, especially in a huge well oiled machine like the USN, training and knowledge picked up from experienced personnel in actual Operations and the experience picked up from the more seasoned sailors and officers is far more relevant to naval operations than just academic classroom training (we’re talking about Operations here, not R&D, theology, STEM, philosophy, etc., or strategy)
        
        Finally, regarding fly overs, etc. the fact that USN ships did not even attempt to shoot down such planes is more a reflection of their strength and self confidence rather than demonstrating such insecurity and panic as to shoot at the first thing that flies over them in peace time: you should commend the local USN commander for restraint and not starting a major war. In addition, good or bad this type of incident falls into the category of anecdotal and ought not be projected as typical of their entire navy (it is entirely possible for the USN to have a commander incompetent, insecure and inexperienced enough to have attempted a shoot down which could provoke a major war, fortunately, in the scenarios you pointed out, this wasn’t the case).
        
        I believe someone once said (McNamara?) “US nuclear aircraft carriers are designed by PhDs, lead by officers with Masters degrees and operated by crews with High School diplomas”. The fact that, despite the situation pointed out in the aforementioned quote, the USN runs so well, is a testament to how well organized and thought thru their systems and operational procedures are (despite the less than ideal education level of their crews).
        
        Anaam on December 27, 2019 · at 10:55 am EST/EDT
        
        I believe the quote was: “US nuclear aircraft carriers are designed by PhDs, run by post-graduates and manned by high school grads (or drop-outs ;-) )”.
        
        jim on December 28, 2019 · at 2:15 am EST/EDT
        
        “Anecdotal incidents of screwups by individuals in USN operations proves nothing”
        
        Anecdotal?
        
        The two women bickering and refusing to communicate with each other, leading to a collision that left a US warship with significant damage?
        
        There are more than just anecdotes here. The US military is infested with left-wing dogma about inclusiveness and diversity. Certain demographics are being promoted up the ranks without concern for merit.
        
        Compare that to China, which does not give a flying #$#@ about political correctness. You perform or you are out. You greatly underestimate the degree to which incompetence is going to set into the US navy, let alone the fact that diversity actually results in LESS cohesion.
        
        I will take a dour, pressured, haggard Chinese naval crew over a crew of diversity hires anyday. Don’t forget that China managed to pop one of its submarines up right in the middle of a US battlegroup a short time ago.
        
        Also, volume counts. China could ramp up industrial production in a matter of months. The Party gets what it wants, and one of the consequences of outsourcing industrial production to another country is that they control supply chains for everyone else.
        
        You might also remind yourself that 50% of US STEM PhD students are from China. How many of those scientists and engineers work in US high tech firms, US government agencies, and US military contractors? The US relies on Chinese for scientific advancement, given the total collapse of white males as a creative force.
        
        Prediction: Chinese aircraft carriers aren’t competitive, but their missiles and submarines will make short work of the US navy. All of that, however, is irrelevant since China has superior manufacturing capabilities and an army of overseas Chinese in positions of influence.
        
        Anaam on December 29, 2019 · at 1:19 am EST/EDT
        
        @jim
        
        Yes anecdotal, including the examples you’ve provided prove absolutely zero regarding chinese capabilities or USN weaknesses. Your points are based on your own wishful thinking and not actual analysis based on logic. A great example is the chinese popping out one of their subs in the middle of a USN carrier group: anecdotal and irrelevant. The Anglo empire had plagiarized and internalized the teachings of the Chinese genius sun tzu and practice the art of emphasizing their feigned weakness where they’re actually strong and blow their own horn loudly and acting strong where they are actually weak (like Trump’s blowhard lie that the US has hypersonic missiles only they’re better than what Russia has: this a great example of feigning strength in the area they are weak)
        
        I imagine the West love it when their enemies actually underestimate them. Especially when they’re the ones that float such stories out via their own lying MSM (usually to use it as an excuse to get more money from Congress)
        
        The US out performs the nascent chinese navy in ever aspect: in quantity (the US enjoys a huge lead in nuclear submarines alone, let alone air craft carriers and offensive surface warships ), in quality (chinese subs are generations behind in technology) and experience, the USN has decades more of operational experience than the Chinese.
        
        The idea of China ramping up production in this area is quite amusing and is not going to happen. You are under some illusion that the US has no manufacturing capacity (got news for you, they still retain 80% of their general manufacturing capacity and under Trump this is ramping back up, and insofar military output they have no dearth of manufacturing capacity, because it’s a protected market). Get serious if you think that the US MiC doesn’t have massive production capacity.
        
        I agree that US corrupting their promotion system by promoting primarily white females into positions without regard to experience or capabilities is going to hurt them, just like when they promoted incompetent politically connected white males like John McCain (a man that is personally responsible for burning alive, by incompetence, over 60 people on the USS Forrester). But if you think that cronyism isn’t rampant in China, you’re dreaming, I’ve witnessed it first hand.
        
        China does not have superior manufacturing capabilities, their quality is terrible, everyone knows that including the chinese. In military manufacture quality matters, that’s why chinese jet engines burn out three times as quickly as their Russian equivalent. That’s why chinese tanks at the Russian tank biathlon end up losing treadwheels and have blown engines each year, while Russian manufactured tanks take the worst abuse and don’t break down.
        
        Paul holland on December 28, 2019 · at 11:46 pm EST/EDT
        
        Yeah yeah Annam
        
        That US Navy Hornet went to shoot down that Syrian su 22 fighter. The su 22 successfully deployed chaf and the 1st shot missed. The 2nd shot connected. And then the Hornet scurried back to the carrier and the carrier high tailed it over to Israel.
        
        Some mighty Navy.. yeah.
        
        BTW its not paid for. China owns more of the US navy than the US does. The kuz and its sisters in China are paid for.
        
        Anaam on December 29, 2019 · at 1:29 am EST/EDT
        
        @paul Holland,
        
        Again, that’s anecdotal and proves nothing about the US Navy overall. However, your example does demonstrate that aircraft Carriers, in general, have become a high value liability against a military with anti-ship missiles (like Syria and their Russian allies), exactly my premise and that of Saker’s article.
        
        Have a great day and happy new year.
      - Srbalj on December 28, 2019 · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT
        
        Did I read the article? Did you read my comment? I was responding to a question posed about China, & what their strategy may be in terms of carrier development – which they are doing. Before you get into an ideological defence of US naval capabilities – which I was not even commenting on – try actually reading the comments & understanding the context in which they were written. Better yet, don’t waste your time, & ours as well.
        
        Anaam on December 29, 2019 · at 12:39 am EST/EDT
        
        Yes, I did read your comment and I disagreed with the unrealistic scenario you drew about combat between US carrier battleground and the much weaker and poorly trained chinese navy trying to take the Americans on with relatively primitive chinese aircraft carriers. It seemed to me that you completely missed the point of the article which proposed that aircraft carriers are obsolete and cannot be used against against navies with ship killing cruise missiles (like the USN, the Japanese Navy, the Indian Navy, even the green water Vietnamese navy, etc).
        
        Best regards, Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.
        
        Srbalj on December 29, 2019 · at 1:11 pm EST/EDT
        
        Why is China developing aircraft carriers? Why do they have a programme? We are not talking about current capability but future capability. You are talking about the current naval capability of the US, which neither I, or other commentators were even talking about. The article was about whether Russia should develop aircraft carriers, & Oliver posed the question: why is China developing carriers? Now you explain to me – in your obvious infinite wisdom, why is China developing aircraft carriers? What is the reason? To protect the Chinese base in Djibouti? I propose it is a first line defence of the Chinese coastline – & I say nothing about whether this is a good strategy or whether it would be effective against the US navy – I unlike you – do not pretend to know the answer to this. You do not know the answer to this, you pretend to, because you are a fan of the US military, obviously. US military capability has been demonstrated, generally, in Iraq & Afghanistan, & their performance there can be extended to the navy as well. The US military itself acknowledges that it is in an extremely poor state, analytically they have reviewed this – not as a deception, why would they deceive when no one threatens them – pretending to be weak when they are strong? The US blows its own trumpet all the time. I could go on & on & on. The article was about Russian naval strategy & the need, or lack thereof of aircraft carriers, you seem to think it was about underestimating the capability of the US navy, which is completely left field & irrelevant.
  - Hassaan on December 29, 2019 · at 3:08 am EST/EDT
    
    They are to be used defensively within a few hundred miles of Chinese soil as a way to extend the range of their air assets in conjunction with land based air-defenses and under the umbrella of radar/detection systems that can pick up stealth.
    
    They are not to meet the American fleet in the middle of the Pacific.
    - Anaam on December 29, 2019 · at 12:39 pm EST/EDT
      
      @Hassaan
      
      Finally somebody that proposes a potentially reasonable hypothesis as to why China might building these carriers. However, in the next few years, if it is announced that these Chinese pocket aircraft carriers and their mini battle groups have made ports of call to Djibouti, the Mediterranean, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, the Pacific Solomon islands etc (ie far away from the defensive area near China’s coast), then will you concede that their purpose is not defensive?
      - Srbalj on December 29, 2019 · at 3:06 pm EST/EDT
        
        China would be perfectly justified in deploying its naval force to defend its bases & interests anywhere in the world, if that truly turned out to be the reason. China has the same rights internationally as any other naval power.
        
        Anaam on December 29, 2019 · at 10:47 pm EST/EDT
        
        No China wouldn’t be perfectly justified to use force to forcibly maintain their presence in someone else’s country, ie China cannot be given a pass to behave like Anglo imperialists, that is hypocrisy. If China uses coups, bribes, usury loans etc to put poor developing nations over a barrel or to force them to give up portions of their sovereign territory (like Britain did to China in taking Hong Kong), that is textbook overt imperialism and these nations have the right to take back their territory and expel foreign forces off any bases on their territory (as long as it’s done with due notice, within local law and no unarmed foreign personnel are attacked, held hostage or killed); let the international courts or arbitration panels work out whatever compensation might be due to whichever party. Even the USA vacated the largest overseas US Naval Base in the world when the Philippines demanded they leave: The USN base at Subic Bay, Philippines, encompassing an area of 60,000 acres (larger than Singapore) was vacated by the US after the Philippines demanded they leave.
        
        When an imperialist or hegemon forces small countries to sign one sided agreements where even the counter signing leader of the small country is a puppet of the hegemon/imperialist, such agreements are illegitimate.
        
        Isn’t that type of behavior we are all trying to get away from? Why would we want a China that behaves like the thieving lying Drug Mafia British Empire? Nobody should get a pass to behave this way, not Russia, China, India nor anyone else.
        
        Best regards Srbalj, also have a happy and successful new year.
        
        Srbalj on December 30, 2019 · at 10:55 am EST/EDT
        
        Best regards to you too, Anaam, & have a happy new year. I respectfully disagree, not in principle, but currently in the so-called mainstream media & intellectual discourse in the west there is a major campaign to equate both China, & Russia, in terms of their overseas activities with the west. It just does not wash at all. China is not an imperialist state, in no measure or in any remotely similar way to the US, UK, or any other western imperialist state, France say. There is just no comparison, neither in scale, or in intent. Russia I will not even talk about, western media has tried its best to make Russia’s military intervention in Syria something comparable to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. China does have the right to defend its interests, it is often making arrangements with governments the west installed, & China does not engage in the kind of rampant one sided exploitation that the US, UK, or France do, which continue to rob the world blind, & commit mass slaughter. China does not do this, & there is no indication at all that China has the intent to behave in such a manner. Infact, considering that China is a recent arrival on the global scene in terms of overseas investment, their behaviour whilst not ideal – that would not be realistic – does demonstrate a more even handed approach. Compared to the US, China is an ideal partner. The best the world can hope for at this point is the establishment of a more balanced world, I wish it were different, I wish there was a utopian revolutionary movement on the horizon – there isn’t. And we will not see what we would consider justice for a long time, if ever, but we may see a slight improvement. You may disagree, we are all entitled to our opinions, the notion that somehow China can be remotely compared to the mass genocidal machinery of the US though – it just is not the case. If that is the claim, it is patently false. But this is my view, I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else that this is the case. Generally speaking, people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the evidence or the logic, or the principles for that matter.
        
        Unorthodox Black Sheep VN on December 30, 2019 · at 7:29 pm EST/EDT
        
        @Srbaji
        
        You are right thai China today is not mass genocide like USA. However, Chinese navy is currently ramming and harassing Vietnamese and Filipino fishers in the South China Sea. If you look again the China dash line, you will find how dangerous it is to other countries because it is too close to water territory. Its action in the South China Sea has shown the China imperialist nature.
        
        By the way, China also has genocidal history too in the 18th century. From “https://www.unz.com/ldinh/tet-offensives-hungry-china-and-dumbed-down-americans/” :
        
        By 1820, China has expanded to roughly its present shape, with some territory lost since, and other regions becoming more firmly under Chinese control and Sinicized. From 1735 to 1792, China waged ten major wars, including campaigns against the Burmese, Vietnamese, Gurkhas, Xinjiang Muslims, Dzungars and Jinhchuan hill tribes. If you haven’t heard of the last two groups, it’s because they’ve been mostly wiped out. Though extremely costly, with two clear defeats, these wars were dubbed the Ten Great Campaigns by the vain and delusional Qianlong Emperor.
        
        Happy New Year.
        
        Anaam on December 30, 2019 · at 8:05 pm EST/EDT
        
        Happy New Years to you Orthodox Black Sheep VN. Looking forward to your next article.
        
        Anaam on December 30, 2019 · at 8:04 pm EST/EDT
        
        Hello srbalj,
        
        It would be nice if the idealistic picture you draw of China was reality, but it is not, countries that border China have first hand knowledge that China is expansionist and has imperial ambitions and attitudes (although not as bad, yet as that of drug mafia brit/Anglo empire). This view is attested by Unorthodox Black Sheep VN, below and by me earlier.
        
        As for genocide, communist China openly supported the murderous genocidal regime of Pol Pot along with and in collusion with the American war criminal Zbigniew Brezinkski , a man so evil that he make Kissinger look like a choir boy. This fact, along with examples provide Unorthodox Black Sheep VN shows you the reality of China and its potential to take the wrong path.
        
        Your last sentence is very astute, you’d be well served to internalize it.
        
        Best regards.
        
        Srbalj on January 01, 2020 · at 12:10 pm EST/EDT
        
        This could go on for ever, this will be my last word on the matter, this discussion is becoming stale. If you seriously, I mean seriously, are trying to claim that China – in any remote way – is comparable to any major western imperial power – I am sorry, but there is something seriously wrong with you. Seriously wrong. 500 years or more of mass genocide world wide, are you in the US? North America as a continent genocided & stolen by Anglo-European colonists, & you are trying to equate China with that? That is not only false, it is not only ridiculous, it is about as dishonest & disgusting an attempt at moral equivalence & blame shifting as you can get. Why does this site even interest you? Here, the voice of multipolarity is basically what is advocated, not because the Saker or any other contributors (Pepe Escobar etc.) idealize China, but we all know what the world is. I tell you what though, continue to defend western imperialism through the back door, in the end of the day, that says nothing about me at all.
        
        Unorthodox Black Sheep VN on January 02, 2020 · at 1:56 am EST/EDT
        
        @Srbalj
        
        I don’t equal China=AngloZionist on mass genocidal. My point here if you look at its past (I will take the 20th century to be more fair), and its current action on the South China Sea is ramming and harrassing fisher boats of other countries especially Vietnamese one, you will see that China is literally an imperialist and opportunitism country. What China is doing right now is just for its own interest, not for so-called anti-imperialism, and they may possible backstab Russia like what they had done to Soviet during 60s, 70s, 80s when Russia is not useful them China anymore. The problem I have that many anti-imperialist people had the cliche “China is innocent”, “China never invaded anyone”, “China is peacefule country”, etc.
        
        Let get back in 18th century, please don’t tell me that you truly don’t consider the genocidal on Dzungars and Jinhchuan hill tribes that was committed by China in the 18th century is not genocidal because they have small population or China was failed to become an imperialism country during 18th century. Take note that 18th century was an century of imperialism country when they went around and kill people, and China failed to become imperism country like “big fish eat small fish”. I willing to say that my country Vietnam is an imperialism country too due to conquering on Champa in 1471, and culture genocidal on highlander minority in central and south Vietnam during 1980s (They had stopped after 1980s). I don’t understand why it is so hard to point out the imperialist nature of China. If China had chance to do, they will commit genocide.
        
        China have right to do anything to put its own interest for their own people, and I encourage China to do it. The problem is Chinese Elites, they are arrogant and greedy without any limited. They will throw their own people to die for their own interest in the name of “anti-imperialism” like what the last generation Chinese elites had done to their own people in 1979. By the way, from my own understanding on Chinese elites, take an example, to Chinese elites, more common Chinese died by wars, diseasa, etc. is good for them because they can have more money, foods, waters, etc. to save for their own interest.
        
        I, in fact, really admire China on many things that I hope my country Vietnam can learn many things from China. However, their unhealthy obsession on “bring back Vietnam to China”, their ridiculous claims on South China Sea with hoax documentaries, and ramming Vietnamese boats had caused more distrust and outrage from Vietnamese. Take a note that Vietnam is number one nemesis to China and same to Vietnam, and China had failed to convinced that China can be trusted.
        
        South China Sea, right now, is disputed territory and I believe that countries around the South China Sea Vietnam, China, Phillipine, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brumei, must set the table to have very serious discussion on how they can have fair share on South China Sea. The problem is all of them never think about this.
        
        That my opinion about China.
      - Hassaan on December 31, 2019 · at 1:00 am EST/EDT
        
        I would still believe their purpose is defensive. What is to prevent the Anglo-Zionist Empire from supporting and arming groups who will attempt to undermine Chinese investments in Africa? Even pirates? If you are China or Russia you have to know USA is out to get you in any way possible, and act accordingly to protect your assets.
        
        That said, the main purpose is to make sure the American Navy can’t intervene when it comes time to reunite Taiwan. If a war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula I expect China will immediately jump in and those carriers will be useful preventing reinforcements from arriving until the South is overrun.
        
        In any event, everything the Chinese Navy does is focused on preventing American access to critical areas. Since USA is the aggressor, that makes the carriers defensive.
        
        Unorthodox Black Sheep VN on December 31, 2019 · at 1:41 am EST/EDT
        
        @Hassaan
        
        I hope I’m wrong but from my own knowledge on China history, and very limited knowledge from military, I will say that the Chinese aircraft carrier is used for invading purposes not defending purposed. Chinese can build a very powerful submarine army with Russian helps if they just want to defended their country instead wasting so much money on the aircraft carrier.
        
        Happy New Year!!
        Unorthodox Black Sheep VN.
Mike Smith on December 26, 2019 · at 2:00 pm EST/EDT

Yes, of course, this is a waste of time and money.
Russia dropping this project and any other carrier notion will perhaps send a greater message to the us, uk, and france that they see no future relevance for a white elephant. They cost a fortune to build, a fortune to load with aircraft, and are a floating coffin for highly trained and dedicated officers and men.
Nussiminen on December 26, 2019 · at 2:37 pm EST/EDT

Q: Is there a future for Russian aircraft carriers?

A: Absobloodylutely! Just paint them with US insignia and sell them to Poland at a very considerable profit!

Humour aside, I agree with Larchmonter. Russia under the outstanding leadership of Putin’s government has come to the point where aircraft carriers are an anachronism.
- Craig Mouldey on December 27, 2019 · at 10:26 am EST/EDT
  
  And the Poles would probably buy it!! LOL. If not them, perhaps Canada? Our government bought some subs from mother Britain which had a way of spontaneously combusting.
  - Nussiminen on December 27, 2019 · at 12:02 pm EST/EDT
    
    They would indeed, ha! And when the junk turns out to not be performing as expected, then they’ll make noises about ”Russian meddling”, not totally unfounded for once.
John Neal Spangler on December 26, 2019 · at 2:43 pm EST/EDT

It looks like God does not want the Russians to waste money on these obsolete weapons systems. Even a lot of American experts are questioning the need for US super carriers. The Carrier mafia watches movies like Midway (good one, by the way) and is getting ready to refight the Imperial Japanese Navy in the Central Pacific. A lot of US budget determined by Army-Navy-Air Force rivalries and tradition.
Auslander on December 26, 2019 · at 3:36 pm EST/EDT

I dunno. The Kuznetsov does have his uses, if nothing else for comic relieve. Couple or so years ago when he sailed down the English Channel on his way to the Med the entire Brit fleet, all six ships, ‘escorted’ him down the channel at the cost of half the Brit fleet’s yearly budget. I’d say just sail him down the channel in oh, say early March, hit the Med and get everyone on board a good tan, then head back north for the 09 May festivities. Long about early September do it again just to give the Brits and French heartburn and have the Brits spend the second half of their year’s budget. Return in October to give the Brits another opportunity to soil their skivvies and force them to pay for the flying bricks they intend to put on their leaking and listing carrier. Rinse and repeat as needed, and it’ll be a great training float for the current crop of Russian Flot officer candidates.

Auslander
- Kent on December 26, 2019 · at 4:30 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Rinse and repeat as needed”
  
  Indeed!!. Made my day.
  
  Kent
- Srbalj on December 26, 2019 · at 8:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  The British navy just lost its Christmas holiday because of an alert to monitor a Russian vessel sailing through the English channel on Christmas Day. Putin has got an excellent sense of humour.
- Anaam on December 26, 2019 · at 11:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  I love it! There you go,…..the business case for refurbishing the kuzetnov and building more advanced versions just got made: it’ll pay for itself by draining the operational budget of the puny British navy every year.
  
  Excellent one auslander.
- Craig Mouldey on December 27, 2019 · at 10:35 am EST/EDT
  
  I knew there were other reasons this article brought me so much humor. This is a brilliant idea by the way. That event must have filled the British Navy and people with such pride, to escort the mighty Kuznetsov out of their area as it chugged along, blowing smoke, keeping the queen safe from those nasty Russians. I think the young guy, full of bluster and full of himself was minister of defense at the time. Gavin Williamson! A young punk and no-nothing. A dandy boy.
  - Conjecture on December 27, 2019 · at 9:31 pm EST/EDT
    
    Pathetic idiot Gavin Williamson was known, very appropriately, in the Brit Foreign Office as ‘Private Pike’ Williamson.
    I think Sergey Lavrov referred to him as Britain’s ‘Minister of War’
    
    Dad’s Army sitcom:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhNdwOaVcZs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YMVPXmaKds
- vot tak on December 27, 2019 · at 9:35 pm EST/EDT
  
  “his uses”, “he sailed”, “his way”, “‘escorted’ him”, “sail him”.
  
  Interesting, I have not heard a ship referred to as male before. Sometimes in a neutral form, “it”, but not as a “he”.
  - Стивен on December 28, 2019 · at 12:34 am EST/EDT
    
    Ship корабль is a masculine noun in Russian. Boat Лодка is a feminine noun.
  - Auslander on December 28, 2019 · at 3:04 am EST/EDT
    
    In general, machines in Russia are ‘he’. That being said, when one is working on a machine, if the machine is not being cooperative then all the ‘feminine’ adverbs available are used to persuade the machine to behave. ‘Sukha’ comes to mind. ‘Sukha’ is a female dog, and like in English it has the other meaning in Russian, too.
    - vot tak on December 29, 2019 · at 12:43 am EST/EDT
      
      Thanks for the explanations, Стивен and Auslander. I kinda figured it was a Russian language/cultural custom. I’m sure suka is one of the more milder terms heard when dealing with uncooperative machinery. ;-D
Ivan Pomidorov on December 26, 2019 · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT

Sounds plausible…. There are some cons https://radiovesti.ru/brand/64394/episode/2229560/
Taras 77 on December 26, 2019 · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT

The US carriers are not at all in good shape: the Ford has yet to complete successful sea trials after two years, many other carriers are in for extended maintenance, etc, etc.

Makes a good deal of common sense for Russia to pull the plug on any carrier plans.

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/22/carrier-ford-may-not-deploy-until-2024-3rd-weapons-elevator-certified
Hans on December 26, 2019 · at 4:05 pm EST/EDT

In the ongoing civil war among the Oligarchs, there are two battle fronts: the economic front; and, the military front. The U.S. is badly losing on the economic front and has only a few years left before they collapse on that front. This is why the sanctions weapon is now being used with abandon, but that will be insufficient to win on the economic front. The only front left that can lead to victory for the U.S. is the military front.

On the military front, aircraft carriers will be useless to Russia. Further, while supersonic missiles may be technically much better than anything the U.S. possesses, I believe the military advantage of these missiles to be essentially non-existent at the moment. Unless the Russians and Chinese are building many many such weapons, they will not have enough to score a decisive blow to the worldwide military infrastructure of the U.S.

I believe that to ‘win’ the civil war, the sides need to focus on two ventures, aircraft carriers being useless for both:

1. Building lots and lots and lots and lots of missiles and their launch platforms for as little money as possible and only with sufficient usability to blow something up. Previous world wars have proven that the side with a lot of lousy weapons will beat the side with only a few very good ones, therefore quantity is more important than quality, although it would be great to manage both quantity and quality.

2. Controlling the high ground, by which I mean space. Modern communications is satellite dependent and, correct me if I am wrong, but for a missile to successfully hit a target thousands of miles from the launch point requires GPS guidance (i.e. satellites). The side that can destroy the other side’s communications satellites will have a decisive advantage. I think that the primary purpose of the new U.S. space force is to develop the capability to destroy satellites. Ground-based laser weapons or other Directed Energy Weapons likely cannot generate enough power for this (and EMPs from nuclear blasts are decidedly indiscriminate), so we are looking at lots and lots of fuel-filled tin cans being launched into space, perhaps carrying bombs in their noses, to knock out the other side’s satellites without affecting their own. I have no clue how far along the Russians and Chinese are on this venture, but the U.S. appears to be ramping up.

In all of this, time is relevant. If the war were to expand now into an all out shooting war between the sides, I think the U.S. would win because I think Russia and China do not have enough of their wonder weapons to hit enough of the U.S.’s worldwide military infrastructure to make a decisive difference. Whereas the U.S. has lots and lots of weapons, albeit of poorer quality, is making lots and lots more of these weapons and is spreading them around to its lackeys. However, the hypersonic weapons seem to have spooked the U.S., which, at the moment, is probably the weapons’ greatest asset, because they have given the U.S. pause, providing more time for the U.S. to lose on the economic front. Losing on the economic front will result in losing on the military front. Given the timing factor of the economic front, I see the war ending in 2-3 years, one way or the other.

One of the wild cards in this will be global climate change, which could asymmetrically devastate one side’s foot soldiers (i.e. the rest of us who are not Oligarchs), which could tip the war one way or the other because dedicated peons are still a requirement in modern warfare.

The other wild card in this will be strategic nuclear weapons. The use of strategic nuclear weapons will make the civil war ‘unwinnable’ because it will be difficult for the Oligarchs to hide from the radiation, there will be little, if any, human civilization left for them to rule over once the war is over, and the global biosphere will collapse in a huge extinction event.
- Cousin **IT on December 27, 2019 · at 8:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  Kindly please wake up. You’ve missed the most important front of all:
  
  The Battlespace of Mind.
  
  Without understanding your environment you are no good to anyone. The Trump psyop constitutes exactly the essence of the message you are repeating: Oligarchs and Intelligence are at war against one another.
  
  They are most definitely not.
  
  Oligarchs and Intelligence are at war with us. That’s You and Me, brother. Whatever resolution they eventually come to I can guarantee it will be good for them and bad for you.
  
  Guaranteed.
  
  Modern warfare is 99% psychological warfare. Remember that and you won’t waste your time repeating other people agitprop thematics.
JJ on December 26, 2019 · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT

Spend the money on gigantic EMP weapons that can paralyse all USA bases home and abroad and Nato and their satellites comms.and media etc etc instantly indeed all at the same time…..
- Makedonia on December 26, 2019 · at 5:57 pm EST/EDT
  
  If Russia (and China) want to win the PR war and in turn win the hearts of people around the world then build hospital ships. These ships could then travel the world and offer free medical treatments by Russian and Chinese doctors to the sick and injured not only during natural disasters but year long and help those whose countries healthcare are either in shambles or just plain too expensive. They could go into ports where invited or even in international waters and give help that millions on this planet need. A country’s strength doesn’t only need to be defined by it’s military but also by its spiritual and humanitarian ideals. I think a combined efforts in building such ships by Russia and China would project more power than any aircraft carrier can.
  - Larchmonter445 on December 27, 2019 · at 12:34 pm EST/EDT
    
    Russia and China will never win the PR war via the media for decades more. What they are winning is the soft power war.
    The non-vassal world sees for themselves and touches flesh with the genuine Russian and Chinese values in trade, weapons, finance, investment, education and medical-humanitarian assistance. Contrasted with US/NATO bombing, depleted uranium, sanctions killing innocents, land mines blowing limbs and bodies to pieces, false flag chem attacks, and special operation and drone assassinations with massive collateral damage, the world doesn’t need a PR message. They know the multipolar future is what they want and need.
    
    Already, Russian mastery of missile defenses and EW systems has the West in a panic. The Pentagon and Congressional war hawks’ anuses are rigid with fear the pace ahead is 5-10 years. And by then, the Chinese will add weapons and systems in Space and subsea that will nullify whatever the geniuses at Lockheed and Raytheon can waste a trillion or two on.
    
    What is most important is keeping the brass, MIC, Congress in deep spastic colon condition.
    Putin and Shoigu have tightened the screws.
    
    It’s fun to watch the figurative buttclowns go apoplectic.
    
    ” ‘Dem sanctions ain’t working, Mista Bossman! ” That’s the PR battle the US is losing big time.
    - Auslander on December 27, 2019 · at 1:52 pm EST/EDT
      
      Well, that explains the look on Dunnsford’s face during the congressional hearing couple years ago, sphincteritus, a sudden lack of control thereon.
Benny on December 26, 2019 · at 4:16 pm EST/EDT

Carriers is useless in modern warfare with competent enemys! Big and easy to detect…The same happend to battleships during WW2..They become floating coffins for the crew from attacking bombers. A total waste of money and so is stealth technology because modern radarsystems can see stealth-planes quite easy.
Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 4:28 pm EST/EDT

all rationally correct. the question remains though why china is building these ships en masse
- Tom Welsh on December 26, 2019 · at 5:39 pm EST/EDT
  
  In the first place, the Chinese have enormous resources and so can indulge in “luxuries” and “nice to have”s.
  
  Second, it is one thing to send your carriers 8,000 miles to threaten the world’s richest and most powerful country in its territorial waters; quite another for that country to use carriers within its own waters to repel attackers.
- hans on December 26, 2019 · at 5:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  Possibly for life after the civil war when it will be necessary for the Oligarchs to control the rets of us. Carriers with fighter planes are good for targeting small groups of insurgents to prevent them from massing into a credible opposition force on the ground, and good for handling warships not outfitted with the hypersonic weapons. These will be the type of battles they face after the war with the U.S.
- Rancid on December 26, 2019 · at 6:26 pm EST/EDT
  
  Very good question. If a carrier these days is purely to intimidate smaller countries without the tech to attack a carrier, then they are not being built to confront the US. Particularly as the Saker points out that the US is very good with carriers and it would take them decades to catch up (if Russia then likewise China). And if not the US then whom, presumably their smaller Asian neighbors or NZ/Australia?
- Anonymous on December 27, 2019 · at 1:45 am EST/EDT
  
  China is not just facing America in the Pacific. It will have to deal with Japan and likely India and Australia–which are all of the the USA’s “Quad” containment of China.
  
  And recently, NATO for the first time has announced that China is on its target list.
  
  In fact, both the Germans and French have deployed their warships in the South China Sea or even Taiwan Straits in recent times.
  
  This is part of NATO and Europe’s own “Pivot to Asia.” Or to be honest, it should be called Germany’s and France’s new Drang nach Osten.
  
  That is why China is developing aircraft carriers.
  
  It knows that the Europeans are just as much of a threat as the Anglo Americans and will have to be fought sooner or later.
  
  NATO Secretary General Targets ‘Rising China’: Why Cold War Newspeak Never Went Away
  https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/12/11/nato-secretary-general-targets-rising-china-why-cold-war-newspeak-never-went-away/
  
  Rearmament despite Dissentions
  NATO Increases Operational Readiness and Targets China
  https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/8129/
  
  The Transpacific Cold War
  https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/8015/
  - Anaam on December 27, 2019 · at 2:56 pm EST/EDT
    
    China is building aircraft carriers as force projection against countries that cannot blow them out of the water with a sea skimmer ship killing cruise missile; ie against weak resource rich African nations that might flip against paying back China for loans, or seizing Chinese assets or military bases within their locale or against small strategic island nations in both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific that have Chinese bases or radars on them.
    
    Which is why China will not tangle with the navies of India, Japan and soon even Vietnam (thanks to Russia supplying Vietnam with Klub missiles, 6-8 kilo class submarines and now a proposal to supply corvettes with shortened range kalibr missiles, see link : https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/vietnams-russian-restocking-subs-ships-sukhois-and-more-05396/). Like Saker said aircraft carriers are a sitting duck for modern navies with anti-ship missiles, especially carriers as rudimentary as those built by China (specifically lacking a Hawkeye type awacs capability in blue water scenarios deep in the pacific or Indian oceans).
    
    In 2018, China tried to prop up their client dictator in the Maldives, Abdulla Yameen, by sending their navy to intimidate growing protests in the Maldives against his regime (which came to power in a coup). According to the Nikkei Asian review, the Indian navy was waiting for the Chinese navy and sent them packing after firing a few warning shots (yameen was forced to end his state of emergency, hold elections and vacate the presidency after close to 60% of voters (90% turnout) voted for his opponent. Here is the link to the report: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Maldives-lifts-state-of-emergency-defusing-China-India-tensions.
    
    Here is a brief summary (in case of pay wall):
    
    Yameen imposed the state of emergency Feb. 5 after the country’s Supreme Court ordered the release of jailed opposition lawmakers. The Yameen government nullified the court’s decision and had two justices arrested, saying they had conspired to overthrow the government. Yameen said the situation posed an imminent threat to national security……..
    ……… China sent several vessels, including missile destroyers, near the Maldives, apparently in response to a Maldivian envoy’s visit to Beijing on Feb. 7. Yameen has counted on China for support, including investment, which has proven controversial. But around Feb. 22, when these ships were around 30 nautical miles from India’s vessels, the Indian Navy threatened action — a warning shot and “war drill” — if they were to come within 20 nautical miles. The Chinese fleet retreated to the southeast, stopping in waters 276 nautical miles from the Maldivian capital of Male.
    
    The above is just a snippet, the rest of the article confirms some of your points regarding the Quad. So the above scenario has already played out once: China tried to use their navy to protect their debt assets in the Maldives and protect a promise by Yameen to allow a Chinese naval base on one of the islands of the Maldives archipelago.
Tom Welsh on December 26, 2019 · at 5:32 pm EST/EDT

“What is certain, however, is that [Kuznetsov] is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers, even their old ones…”

Kuznetsov’s missiles can sink an American carrier, regardless of how many aircraft she hosts. And even if the planes get airborne, the missile will sink their carrier long before they get anywhere near “Kuznetsov”.
Tom Welsh on December 26, 2019 · at 5:35 pm EST/EDT

“Russia STILL has nothing close to the aging but still very effective carrier-capable USN Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye”.

Although it’s really not very hard to do better than a burning pile of wreckage on the ground.
S-400 on December 26, 2019 · at 6:02 pm EST/EDT

Iranian commander Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Aerospace Division.

“An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now it is a target and the threats have switched to opportunities,” said

“If (the Americans) make a move, we will hit them in the head,”
Daniel Martin on December 26, 2019 · at 6:05 pm EST/EDT

I can not but agree with Sakers conclusion, with existing and future missile technologies to come these ships are redundant and a big waste of money on something that wouldn’t last more then three days in a armed conflict against a peer or near peer adversary. While in the past the main advantage of these ships was that they could relatively safely position them selfs near a coast of a third world county and pound the living daylights out of them with a combined carrier group, today however the exact opposite is true. New missiles are capable of hitting these ships long before they even come in operational range for it’s air component to be able to be deployed against a potential enemy. Today only Russia and China have these abilities me knowingly (correct me if I’m wrong) but i believe that in the future more and more countries will get access to these technologies.
S-400 on December 26, 2019 · at 6:14 pm EST/EDT

The glory days of aircraft carriers have passed. They have been eclipsed by weapons that render them obsolete.

Just imagine the propaganda value of capturing on film the sinking of an aircraft carrier with its crew and equipment from multiple angles by drones.

The psychological effect on the empire would be enormous
- Passing by on December 26, 2019 · at 11:22 pm EST/EDT
  
  Pearl Harbour is a proof that sinking a “symbol” had just an opposite effect.
  No Navy is complete without Aircraft Carriers ( at least 1 or 2 medium class ). Chinese, Sth Koreans, Japanese are building. There is always roles for such ships, incl non-combat, launching platform for drones …. hundreds more missions.
  And there are benefits for shipyard building industry as well, practically it’s like a laboratory for the future.
  You are all wrong.
Gorgeous George on December 26, 2019 · at 6:25 pm EST/EDT

I laughed when you we’re calling the F35 a flying brick. I used to think the same, but now I’m honestly on the fence, though I do still take pleasure in reading people shitting all over the F35.

But,

Is it really still that bad? Did they not overcome the early difficulties? Was its areal under-performance (poor rate of lift and general crappy dogfight capabilities) really not a moot point since it wasn’t really designed to be a true fighter, but more of a stealthy long ranged delivery vehicle for even stealthier and longer ranged killer weapons.
Are it’s radars not more capable of seeing the Russian latest planes than the other way around, and if so – if it get’s first sight and fires and turns round then it’s more-less irrelevant who can fly faster or perform stunts better?

Also with that much money poured into it, and with all of the countries lining up to buy it (sure all are client states and straight up vassals) does it not simply HAVE to deliver or some of it’s main points? Is it also not just the plane that matters but that it’s a part of an integrated system that makes it even more lethal?

Finally, if it is such a flying brick and everyone is buying it because they have to for whatever reason, why would the US threaten with not making them available for purchase? Turkey for example, why would the US (assuming that the F35 is a flying brick and that they are well aware of that) not let Turkey still buy these and keep taking their money rather than threaten with blocking that? Also the Turks, while they did stick with their S400 purchase, and they did accept the consequence of not being able to buy F35’s, they still did fight for those purchases till the end. It seems that that blockade was not of their preference, again proving that the plane does have some (perhaps great) value as a weapon of war.

Regards.
- Blue Dotterel on December 27, 2019 · at 2:20 am EST/EDT
  
  Turkey profits from producing some 800 plus quality parts for the F-35. That is Turkey’s main interest in the F-35.
- Norwegian on December 27, 2019 · at 4:18 am EST/EDT
  
  Turkey for example, why would the US (assuming that the F35 is a flying brick and that they are well aware of that) not let Turkey still buy these and keep taking their money rather than threaten with blocking that?
  
  Perhaps the real story is that Turkey told the US that they were not buying the flying bricks after all, and the US put up a face saving lie and “threatened to not making them available”.
- Jams O'Donnell on December 27, 2019 · at 1:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  The real problem with the F-35 is not it’s lack of capability, but it’s downtime for general maintenance and replacement engine cost/time. Reduced flying hours mean poor training, poor flying skills (computer simulations notwithstanding). And as others have noted, modern missiles have turned carriers into opportunities, not threats.
  - Gorgeous George on December 27, 2019 · at 3:44 pm EST/EDT
    
    Thank you James.
    
    That still means that it’s not a flying brick but an high maintenance premadonna.
- Ou Si (區司) on December 29, 2019 · at 11:52 am EST/EDT
  
  Someone in Turkey had been offered big sub-contractor contracts for and from the F35ies. Thatt’s why someone or something in the Turkish military-industrial-Anglozionists’ sphere wanted this to carry on. “Keep on truckin’!”
Alabama on December 26, 2019 · at 8:00 pm EST/EDT

Not that I want to question where people have been this past year or from where they get their news, but I recall this occurring over a year ago, a lot can happen in a year. So I dug up the article and here it is.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/europe/russia-aircraft-carrier-dock-intl/index.html
Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 8:31 pm EST/EDT

Sound logic. If the aim is not empire expansion, then why commit resources to building targets that need defending (these ships need a flotilla to accompany them)? Hyper-speed missiles with pin-point accuracy as a defense strategy are a far more useful asset. The American psyche needs lots of theatrics and stage props (GWBush on deck etc) to feel superior (and thus confident). I doubt this is relevant for the Russian. The visuals of some joke-strap in a multi-million dollar aircraft flying on a mission with a half-dozen (at most) bombs belongs in WW2 movies. The future is more likely to be swarms of drones (if anything at all) flown by a herd of onshore pimple squeezing ‘gamers,’ if not AI. If huge ships are needed at some time in the future then work on a quick super carrier conversion design — and in the meantime (peace time) use it to ship cargo etc. It is a more expendable option in any case. It is not going to be any less safe than a mighty armored military option with no other dual purpose revenue generating option. And if attacked, it will go down to the same hyper anti-ship missile swam, and for much less cost.

My only question is regarding submarine options. Why diesel-electric? Would not nuclear be a more resilient option — refueling may be a risk in hostilities?
- Anonymous on December 26, 2019 · at 11:52 pm EST/EDT
  
  “… regarding submarine options. Why diesel-electric? …”
  
  The answer, according to
  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-point-of-modern-diesel-electric-submarines-since-the-primary-reason-for-submarines-is-their-ability-to-stay-hidden-and-the-inability-to-stay-submerged-while-traveling-long-distances-underwater-negates
  and
  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-point-of-modern-diesel-electric-submarines-since-the-primary-reason-for-submarines-is-their-ability-to-stay-hidden-and-the-inability-to-stay-submerged-while-traveling-long-distances-underwater-negates/answer/Minhajul-Anwar ,
  is:
  
  Cost, quiet, operational requirements.
- Sadam79 on December 27, 2019 · at 1:32 am EST/EDT
  
  атомные лодки большие и очень шумные. они требуют дорогую береговую инфраструктуру. действовать атомные лодки должны в океане
  
  для Балтийского и Черного моря лучше подходят дизель-электрические лодки
  
  Google translation,MOD-nuclear boats are large and very noisy. they require expensive coastal infrastructure. nuclear boats must act in the ocean
  
  diesel electric boats are better suited for the Baltic and Black Sea
  - P.S.: on December 27, 2019 · at 11:42 am EST/EDT
    
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-sweden-make-americas-nuclear-submarines-obsolete-18908
PeterP on December 26, 2019 · at 8:58 pm EST/EDT

Russian aircraft carriers are not required. Submarines are the deterrent. New York, Boston, Washington DC, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle would be obliterated in minutes from a barrage of missiles from Yashins’ and Boreis’ missiles. US is very vulnerable.
- Kapricorn4 on December 30, 2019 · at 6:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  At one time the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans acted as a defensive moat around the US, but now they could be its Achilles heel. Just a few 50 megaton nuclear bombs exploded underwater just offshore would create tsunami waves 500 feet high, that would inundate both coastlines for miles inland, destroying every thing in their wake.
  - krollchem on December 31, 2019 · at 6:02 pm EST/EDT
    
    The nuclear torpedo tsunami issue is overblown and largely based on end-of-the-world Hollywood movies such as “Deep Impact”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNtsVP42bOE
    
    A nuclear explosion wave is similar to a rock thrown into a pond where the amplitude of the wave may be high but the wavelength is very short. Available research demonstrates that surface waves from even a very large offshore undersea explosion would expend most of their energy on the continental shelf, resulting in coastal flooding no worse than that from a bad storm: “Water Waves Generated by Underwater Explosions” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235143557_Water_Waves_Generated_by_Underwater_Explosion
    
    In contrast, an underwater earthquake from a reverse fault yields a water displacement that has a much lower amplitude but a much greater wavelength. Thus a tsunami travels much further with little loss of energy:
    “Wind-generated waves usually have period (time between two successive waves) of five to twenty seconds and a wavelength of 100 to 200 meters. A tsunami can have a period in the range of ten minutes to two hours and wavelengths greater than 500 km. A wave is characterized as a shallow-water wave when the ratio of the water depth and wavelength is very small. The velocity of a shallow-water wave is also equal to the square root of the product of the acceleration of gravity, g, (10m/sec2) and the depth of the water, d. The rate at which a wave loses its energy is inversely related to its wavelength. Since a tsunami has a very large wavelength, it will lose little energy as it propagates. Thus, in very deep water, a tsunami will travel at high speeds with little loss of energy. For example, when the ocean is 6100 m deep, a tsunami will travel about 890 km/hr, and thus can travel across the Pacific Ocean in less than one day.”
    http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/tsunami.htm
    If close to shore, a wave from an underwater nuclear explosion could be approximately modeled from known underwater explosions, which constitute about 1% of all tsunamis. In the case of the 1650 AD Kolumbo (NE of Santorini caldera) tsunami, the source mechanism that best matches with the spatial distribution of tsunami deposits in Santorini (Thera) is a 2E16 Joules underwater explosion initiated at water depths of 150 m. Initial wave surface displacement of 300m yielded a maximum coastal tsunami of 12m to a nearby island but dropped off rapidly with distance: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235143557_Water_Waves_Generated_by_Underwater_Explosion
    
    A 100MT would yield 41.84E16 J of energy. In case of an underwater nuclear explosion about 50% would be blast energy, 15% nuclear radiation and 35% thermal radiation. This would yield about 20E16 J of blast energy, or ten time that of the Kolumbo underwater explosion. Perhaps the initial wave might approach a nearby shore at a height of 40-100 m but would break at a corresponding water depths and end up as a very damaging storm surge. I would be more concerned by flooding caused radioactive rain due to some of the 1-5E12 tons of radioactive water raised in the column.
    (See: http://www.abomb1.org/nukeffct/enw77b2.html).
    
    A significant quantity of the radioactivity comes from non-fissile uranium-234, which is an alpha emitter with half life of 2.44E5 years , as well as isotopes of plutonium formed by the neutron irradiation of U-238 in the explosion (at 80% U-235 enrichment).
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2619320/the_forgotten_uranium_isotope_secrets_of_the_nuclear_bomb_tests_revealed.html
    
    In addition to other radioisotopes from the fission of U-235 there are seawater components that become radioactive from the 15% nuclear radiation of the detonation:
    Sodium-24 (half life of 15 hrs) and 0.1% of seawater
    Chloride-36 (half life of 300,000 years) and 0.1% of seawater
    sulfur -35 (half life of 87.5 days) and 0.09% of seawater
    
    The greatest seawater component concern is Na-24 which decays to Mg-24 by beta-minus decay emission of an electron and two gamma rays.
    
    Given that the thermal energy from a 100MT nuclear detonation = 3.5×1019
    Calories, you get up to 2.21E10 megatons of steam or a lot of really hot water and steam! Anyone for a warm radioactive bath?
    - Anaam on December 31, 2019 · at 8:47 pm EST/EDT
      
      @ Krollchem
      
      Yours was an excellent post, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you so much for such a gem of a post.
      
      Have a fantastic New Year with maximum success.
      - krollchem on January 01, 2020 · at 12:21 am EST/EDT
        
        Thanks!
        
        I really appreciate the in-depth discussion at the Saker. This same article at the UNZ review brings out all the right wing zionists which leaves little space for critical analyses.
        
        Just to avoid any confusion about anti-semitism (Palestinians are semites ) I offer the following:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUppu2OHVTY
Gryphon on December 26, 2019 · at 9:19 pm EST/EDT

Aircraft Carriers came into wide use during the Second Great War, when few Aircraft had great Range, and projecting Air Power ‘forward’ was Essential. The War in the Pacific was Won mostly because the U.S. could put Thousands of relatively short-range Planes anywhere, without the Delay of building Bases, (which they did anyway) . The Superiority of the Aircraft over the Surface Ship (even other Carriers) was proven definitively.

After the War, and to this Day, the United States (or anglo-zionist empire) has an essential Need to ‘project power’ around the World in its pursuit of (Stolen) Resources. The modern, Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier has replaced the Battleship in its ability to Attack with Impunity the small, weak Nations that the Empire preys upon. What the ‘military-industrial complex’ refuses to Admit is the Fact that Land-Based Aviation, Missiles (“hypersonic” or not) and the Submarine Torpedo (Nuclear Powered and/or Warhead) all effectively Negate the Carrier Battle Fleet as a Warfighting Force against a Modern Military.

Since Russia (God Bless her People) have taken the path of Cooperation and Trade with other Nations, the Russian Navy has No Use for ‘Power Projection’ to Bully other Peoples. To Defend itself, Russia needs what its extant Weapons Programs are developing; Submarines, Anti-Ship Missiles, and Aircraft and Ships to carry them. Russia, by its size, Geography, and Resources, cannot effectively be Invaded and Subdued. That the anglo-zionists cannot seem to grasp this Fact may be the End of us All, if they go “Full (nuclear) Retard” against Russia and the rest of the World.
- francis m reps on December 27, 2019 · at 10:11 am EST/EDT
  
  Gryphon agrees with the article which points to the “illogic” of a Prudent Nation spending precious resources on “King Kong” Weapon Systems. The propaganda aspect of seeing a Mighty Aircraft Carrier was of enormous value for impressing ignorant people who are clueless to the realities of modern warfare. The former Soviet Union used gigantic posters and Mile Long Military Parades in the past ; while the USA uses the gigantic aircraft Carrier in the present. The stupidity and venality of the Anglo Zionist Leadership could be one reason for manufacturing and maintaining such costly Military Hardware ; but starting a World War which would destroy both Christian Russia and a bankrupt but still powerful America fits nicely onto the plans of the Zionists ; who would discard their ” Anglo ” Associates in a heartbeat.
Harry on December 26, 2019 · at 9:44 pm EST/EDT

These arguments appear to me, entirely sensible. Looking at developments, especially of early intervention defence systems a case might be made for large cargo class submarines converted to carry a reasonable marine self defence inventory along with a combination of Drone/Drone swarm offensive elements for air/sea/land operations. C&C might be enabled through transponders as well as small submersibles in conjunction with possible helicopters, if operation permits surface breach. A mind boggling design problem, but such hardware would facilitate the laying/retrieval seabed automated/territory defence mines in combat theatres.
michael Houston on December 26, 2019 · at 10:29 pm EST/EDT

A permanent small city anchored in the Arctic…..nuclear powered plant….. airport…..storage….work areas with elevators….hospital…..easily supplied/sustained,,,,,the possibilities would be endless…..
- Стивен on December 28, 2019 · at 12:46 am EST/EDT
  
  Apart from helicopters and VTOL aircraft, landing is done via arrestor wires, so count out using a carrier as an airport.
Smitty on December 27, 2019 · at 12:08 am EST/EDT

Carriers in the 21st century are the equivalent of battleships in the 20th century, they’re just too hard to hide from smart missiles, and their role as launching platforms for manned fighters and bombers is coming to an end too, manned fighters and bombers are also obsolete, they can’t compete with unmanned fighters and bombers economically as well as aerodynamically.

Nuke defense is also a waste of money with open borders.

The US defense budget’s primary purpose now is to enslave Americans with debt.
cdvision on December 27, 2019 · at 12:48 am EST/EDT

Well, if/when they retire the Kuznetsov, then the famous name can be assigned to one of the new ships/submarines. The first to live fire a Zircon would be my choice – that would make the point.
ActivePatriot on December 27, 2019 · at 1:25 am EST/EDT

I agree.

You don’t need carriers if you don’t have tangled alliances spanning the world that you may need to defend on a moments notice. Or support your constant regime change efforts.

You need sufficient battle groups to support your area of influence and Russia seems to have that and shown they can do it in Syria. They can defend Crimea and support Iran if it ever comes to it.

True, that if they did want carriers just have Chinese build them. Speaking of China, on the course they are on it does seem to make sense for Chinese to have a few. I have no concrete basis for saying this but I suspect tensions will come to a head with China in an area most people wouldn’t expect – Africa.
gT on December 27, 2019 · at 2:06 am EST/EDT

Putin seems to be operating on the principle of “He who defends everything, defends nothing”. So all Russians and Russian assets outside Russia are considered not worth defending that much and hence expendable, only the Russian mainland is worth defending. So the continuous Western anti-Russian Olympic drugging drama is as effective as the Western sanctions against Russia, Russia just can’t be bothered.

Donetsk, Lugansk and Syria and probably Iran in the future are just low cost stalemating actions, not defending actions. Its better to confine the Western driven scuffles to the periphery of Russian borders for as long as possible. Aircraft carriers are assets for power projection, Russia is not in the game of power projection. The only benefit of the Admiral Kuznetsov is that it keeps the naval aviation technology sphere alive, maybe Russia could profit from that kind of technology on the market one day, or experience in naval aviation might be of benefit to future mothership development in space one day, who knows.
Rodion Romanovic on December 27, 2019 · at 4:50 am EST/EDT

Probably strike carriers like the US Navy uses them are not the ideal for the Russian Navy. However they could be very useful to provide air cover to the Russian Navy ships. Furthermore if they build a proper AEW aircraft similar to the american E-2 Hawkeye, this will allow them to have an excellent view of the movement of ships and aircraft (and missiles) at a very long range, increasing the navy defense and offense capabilities.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union they were developing the Yak-44, that apparently would have been able to take off both using the catapults in the never built Ulyanovsk carrier than using the inclined ramp in admiral Kuznetov.

They could revamp this project, of course with modern engines and modern electronics, and I believe it could be also useful for the airforce, as a smaller brother of the Il-76 based A50/A100 or for export to other smaller nations. Anyway the US sold carrier based aircrafts (the F/A18) to air forces of several countries that do not even possess naval aviation.
- Arioch on December 28, 2019 · at 6:43 pm EST/EDT
  
  Wasn’t Yak-44 already revamped as F-35 ?
  
  And it can hardly be made much better: principal limitations are principal
Sturm on December 27, 2019 · at 5:35 am EST/EDT

There could be a 4th (non-wartime) role. The Antarctic. For whatever reasons, at least one carrier will come in handy if there’s a need to maintain a mobile airwing for recon and perhaps even recovery. Had they managed to to get those Mistrals from France, perhaps there might have been a lesser need to maintain the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Politics tried very hard to deny them those heli carriers, so much so that France was willing to lose money over it. Why even bother in the first place if they don’t foresee an impact? Anyway, those heli carriers are still being planned afaik, through Russian shipyards … just delayed.
Kapetan Brina on December 27, 2019 · at 6:31 am EST/EDT

I would put new diesel engine, capable S400 on its deck, 100 Kalibrs, decent EW units and sell it to best enemy of western cannibal.
Anonymous on December 27, 2019 · at 7:46 am EST/EDT

Btw, this is now on Zero Hedge.
However, the comments there are largely vacuous.
vot tak on December 27, 2019 · at 10:10 am EST/EDT

“Furthermore, what Russia needs most today are, in my opinion, more multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN (like the Yasen), more diesel-electric attack submarines SSK (like the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), more advanced patrol boats/frigates (like the Admiral Kasatonov), more small missile ships/corvettes (like the Karakurt), more large assault ships (like the Petr Morgunov) and many, many, more.”

I am reminded of Jeune École.
Craig Mouldey on December 27, 2019 · at 10:21 am EST/EDT

I don’t know much about weaponry, other than the little I read. Still, this was the first article I’ve read this morning and it was a good way to start the day. I felt a lot of humor in pondering it’s message. I was shaking my head with disappointment over 3 accidents happening, all related to servicing the Kuznetsov. 3 ‘accidents’? What are the odds of this?
Carrier fleets are the go-to way of expressing ‘diplomacy’ when a nation fancy’s itself the boss of the world. I can’t see this method working against a nation that is really able to defend itself. One U.S. fool gave a speech suggesting an embargo of Russia! Fathom that. I hope the 5000 crew members are really good long-distance swimmers. So, other than threatening small countries, carrier fleets really serve no purpose other than to feed the military complex at the citizen’s expense.
I think Russia, as a non-aggressive nation has put their focus in the right areas. Remember the destroyer, the U.S.S. Donald Cook sticking it’s nose where it ought not, in the Black Sea? Several passes by a Russian fighter equipped with EW and the Donald had to go immediately to a port for repairs because they lost their eyes and ears and that ship was a sitting duck. https://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=5300890c5b14865766ff026243be1005612e580c-1577458327-0-ASAToQlSshbkjDRzJZzNPGJitOcssFVQMr6c1EjIV6pjCdKEKQhr_sO6KIPFoypK1-JRBdCUhY8OI_DpXpvNYIJOeojBoXMN_RdK6xIQGVkDuGomRWo6Gn2XcWuKE8R8A6Eo1QC0zJ-GF8d2wWssCcU-28VPoWwcQRLYfVSy_kYs8Oni74Dw_QFnEk16ujEDYmj3ukn24Yo2Ss7Po335u9KP7_K4P4oDIMIGdneVDMYVbsowBQp2KBZwy3FqVGQ0Ytkni93bRIpqHqK2WEPttgRShlj6ESjtjpqMxaKR8p_4
And then there was the bizarre case of two other U.S. Navy ships, One being the U.S.S. McCain being rammed by cargo vessels. These two state of the art, nimble ships could not get out of the way of the lumbering tanker? Clearly something had failed on those ships, and I don’t believe it was the crew. So, with their bloated military budget and fantasy of subjugating the entire world, the wheels appear to be flying off their war machine.
For countries not interested in war but in economic advancement to make life better for its people, Russia is doing a lot of things right. Maybe they can turn the Kuznetsov into a museum or high-end restaurant for tourists?
Ezio Bonsignore on December 27, 2019 · at 11:12 am EST/EDT

The article by Saker raises two inter-related but largely independent questions:

1) Whether aircraft carriers still have an important function in modern warfare; and
2) Whether Russia needs aircraft carriers, or anyway could benefit from the presence of such vessels in her fleet.

As regards point 1), I’m afraid comments to the effect that carriers are “outmoded” or “useless” betray but a complete lack of understanding of the roles of carriers in contemporary naval strategy, and more broadly of the basic tenets of sea power.

Carriers are, and remain, by far the most efficient, redoubtable and practical system for power projection worldwide. The rapidity of intervention enabled by carriers, moving freely across the oceans to bring a considerable air power to bear whenever and wherever needed, is unmatched by any other existing or conceivable solution – unless we start thinking of battle stations in orbit, which however are still a little bit off.

This has nothing to do with carriers being “vulnerable” to hypersonic/ballistic missiles or whatever new fancy weapons (incidentally, the same would apply to any other surface warship). Of course new threats need to be taken into account to introduce new defensive systems or tactics, and in some cases (most particularly, the Chinese ASBMs as part of the overall A2AD “bubble”) such threats might come to at least temporarily deny carrier task forces the unimpeded access to certain areas. But carriers will never be replaced because they are “too vulnerable”(?), for the very simple reason that there are no alternative solutions. If “vulnerability” was such an overriding criteria, then we should rush and abolish infantry soldiers, who each take 20+ year to build yet can be quickly killed by a wide variety of very cheap weapons.

Now the US is a “thalassocratic” (sea power-based) empire by definition, and the above-described power projection capabilities provided by carrier task forces thus remain a central, and irreplaceable element of her entire foreign policy. Much the same, albeit to a much smaller scale, applies to China. The carriers the PLAN is building, and more broadly the entire PLAN surface fleet, are most certainly and indeed obviously NOT intended for an hypothetical major naval battle against the USN somewhere in the Pacific. The one and only Chinese worry about the USN is to keep its (the USN’s) carrier task forces off the Chinese coasts, and ideally even beyond the “Second String of Pearls”. This however is the task of the A2AD system, not of the PLAN fleet (but for submarines). Rather, the new Chinese carriers and their escorts are intended to achieve maritime superiority (including power projection) at regional level, with regards to all possible opponents.

Russia in a continental power by definition, and as such she could project power (to a certain range) across all areas of her interest by using aircraft and/or missiles based on her own territory. Given this, “could” Russia benefit from having carriers in her fleet? Of course, yes – exactly as an average medium-income family could benefit from having in its garages a sedan form formal occasions, a station wagon for bulk purchase, a SUV for the occasional cross-country trips and a small electric-powered car to go downtown. But, does Russia “needs” a carrier force, particularly in the current overall strategic situation and considering that the money for such a force would need being diverted from other and more pressing issues? Saker is correct is suggesting that the answer is “no”.
Ezio Bonsignore on December 27, 2019 · at 11:17 am EST/EDT

The article by Saker raises two inter-related but largely independent questions:

1) Whether aircraft carriers still have an important function in modern warfare; and
2) Whether Russia needs aircraft carriers, or anyway could benefit from the presence of such vessels in her fleet.

As regards point 1), I’m afraid comments to the effect that carriers are “outmoded” or “useless” betray but a complete lack of understanding of the roles of carriers in contemporary naval strategy, and more broadly of the basic tenets of sea power.
Carriers are, and remain, by far the most efficient, redoubtable and practical system for power projection worldwide. The rapidity of intervention enabled by carriers, moving freely across the oceans to bring a considerable air power to bear whenever and wherever needed, is unmatched by any other existing or conceivable solution – unless we start thinking of battle stations in orbit, which however are still a little bit off.
This has nothing to do with carriers being “vulnerable” to hypersonic/ballistic missiles or whatever new fancy weapons (incidentally, the same would apply to any other surface warship). Of course new threats need to be taken into account to introduce new defensive systems or tactics, and in some cases (most particularly, the Chinese ASBMs as part of the overall A2AD “bubble”) such threats might come to at least temporarily deny carrier task forces the unimpeded access to certain areas. But carriers will never be replaced because they are “too vulnerable”(?), for the very simple reason that there are no alternative solutions. If “vulnerability” was such an overriding criteria, then we should rush and abolish infantry soldiers, who each take 20+ year to build yet can be quickly killed by a wide variety of very cheap weapons.
Now the US is a “thalassocratic” (sea power-based) empire by definition, and the above-described power projection capabilities provided by carrier task forces thus remain a central, and irreplaceable element of her entire foreign policy. Much the same, albeit to a much smaller scale, applies to China. The carriers the PLAN is building, and more broadly the entire PLAN surface fleet, are most certainly and indeed obviously NOT intended for an hypothetical major naval battle against the USN somewhere in the Pacific. The one and only Chinese worry about the USN is to keep its (the USN’s) carrier task forces off the Chinese coasts, and ideally even beyond the “Second String of Pearls”. This however is the task of the A2AD system, not of the PLAN fleet (but for submarines). Rather, the new Chinese carriers and their escorts are intended to achieve maritime superiority (including power projection) at regional level, with regards to all possible opponents.
Russia in a continental power by definition, and as such she could project power (to a certain range) across all areas of her interest by using aircraft and/or missiles based on her own territory. Given this, “could” Russia benefit from having carriers in her fleet? Of course, yes – exactly as an average medium-income family could benefit from having in its garages not only a sedan form formal occasions, a station wagon for bulk purchase and a SUV for the occasional cross-country trips, but also a small electric-powered car to go downtown. But, does Russia “needs” a carrier force, particularly in the current overall strategic situation and considering that the money for such a force would need being diverted from other and more pressing issues? Saker is correct is suggesting that the answer is “no”.
- That Random Guy on December 27, 2019 · at 11:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  Good post, with which I agree except for the conclusion, it seems as if this discussion refuses to die, even when the very Russian leadership has made it clear in a number of times that the DO PLAN to develop nuclear carriers, even when not in the numbers or under the doctrines used by the USN.
  
  Interestingly, we also read western “experts” often express some of the same ideas as exposed in the article above and kindly advise Russia to avoid wasting money on carriers… all while their own countries not only do not renounce to them but rather upgrade and increase their numbers.
  
  So just a few points in the hope that the basics of the discussion are not overlooked:
  
  > Any conventional weapon is not “necessary” in a strict sense once it is nuclear weapons that provide the basis of strategic stability. Carriers are mainly tools of power projection and therefore not strictly “necessary” for any country, be it Russia, China or USA.
  > Carriers are useful because they allow to bring air power to the sea domain. The side that does not possess access to it will loose the initiative in the fight and end up on the receiving end of their enemies’ attacks. This military reality was already perceived by the Soviet military command and remains relevant to our day for the VMF.
  > Re. vulnerability, this is a perfectly hollow argument as you say, since missiles can indeed attack any surface combatant (or carry torpedoes to attack submarines). In fact, if any vessel can be equipped to repel attacks by hypersonic missiles and other sophisticated weapons, the carriers will be the first ones, due to size, importance and availability of power, crew and space. For instance, laser and microwave weapons which are in active development (some of them even in service) already in the Russian armed forces and which have been repeatedly mentioned by the Russian leadership as critical elements on which their future defensive capabilities depend. Coherently, this temporary “vulnerability” issue is not preventing every single power from pursuing their own carrier program.
  
  So in the end, Russia just as any other power would see use in a reasonable amount of carriers, not necessarily to act close to its territory but to defend their interests in the remote sea zones, and has accordingly developed strategic plans that consider them and their corresponding air wings. In fact, and since US has made considerable strategic failures neglecting their AShM technology and betting on naval fighter platforms that are badly equipped for air superiority, a window of opportunity has opened for Russia in the medium term to get effective deterrence vs. USN even far from their territory, if they do continue rebuilding their naval industry with increased focus on ships for the remote sea zone and develop PAK-KA based on the Su-57 / an AWACS platform for a nuclear carrier, at best of semi-catamaran layout and 60-70 kT displacement that could carry 3 squadrons of heavy fighters and support them properly.
  - Anaam on December 30, 2019 · at 2:02 am EST/EDT
    
    That Random Guy makes very good points. The only problem is how quickly can the russians commission their aircraft carriers: at the current pace, their temporary window of opportunity will have passed by. They’d have better be more focussed before the sino fanboys ridiculous fantasies of Russia depending on China for carriers and other Capitol ships becomes a plausible nightmare Russia.
hardy.Veles on December 27, 2019 · at 11:18 am EST/EDT

Scenario: 4th Balkan War (2020 – ~2022)

Albanian national movement declares unification of Albania, Kosovo* and Iliriada **. Serbs on north of Kosovo start massive protests, ROSU*** intervenes resulting in serious bloodshed. Serbian Army enters the province to protect Serbian population. Albanian Army enters the province on south, to counter “Serbian aggression”. Serbian Air-force devastates Albanian armored units (as Albanian side has no air power at all) near southern Serbia (Kosovo) – Albanian border. Albania claims the airstrike took place on their territory, thus, invokes NATO mutual-defense chapter, but Spain, Hungary and Turkey use veto – preventing NATO from taking direct action against. Serbia calls Russia for military support, however, despite opposing direct NATO intervention, Hungary can’t take such freedom to allow airlift of Russian forces over its territory (Romania and Bulgaria not even considering any coop). The only access to reach Serbia would be from Adriatic Sea, if Montenegro is talked into allowing it – which might be possible (despite being NATO member) as part of Montenegro is also claimed by Albanian national movement.

* southern part of Serbia, claimed/populated by Albanians
** western part of (North) Macedonia, claimed/populated by Albanians
*** special anti-terror unit of Kosovo Police Force

Question: Would Admiral Kuznetzov change anything in Russian perspectives to help Serbia?

I have to agree: not much.
- Kapetan Brina on December 27, 2019 · at 1:26 pm EST/EDT
  
  Russian fleet can obliterate Albanians from Black sea…but as I know Soviets and specialy J.V.Stalin had special desire to separate Kosovo from mother Serbia.
  Djilas and Kardelj were raporting to Stalin how process was developing – monthly and only infombiro crack with Jugoslavija prevented that plot.
  I hope Russia have different opinion on that, but dont expect Specnaz to show up there when Vucic is doing nada.
  Pozdrav iz Ljubljane bratjok
- George Kovachev on December 30, 2019 · at 2:07 pm EST/EDT
  
  Romania and Bulgaria not even considering any coop
  
  I wouldn’t be so sure about Bulgaria – indeed, officially they’ll toe the party line, but unofficially small formations, for example batallion-sized, would pass without a problem. They could, for example, come for a joint military exercises, and end up, somehow, in Serbia ;-)
Edward on December 27, 2019 · at 11:47 am EST/EDT

Perhaps submarine drones will be the future, if they can be protected from electronic warfare.
Gabriel the Seagull on December 27, 2019 · at 2:41 pm EST/EDT

Through all the comments, I don’t see any mention of a “broader vision” and “higher view” of defense capabilities which would take into account this funny new “Space Force” that has just been initiated.

When we listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPLmb6gAdw&feature=youtu.be
conference of Steven L. Kwast, a retired Air Force general and former commander of the Air Education and Training Command at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, I can deduct that the naval force on the ocean will not be so important if “laser/electro-magnetic blasts” can immobilize communications, electronics from space etc…
I know nothing of war machines but have a little idea of IT and a vision of what’s to come.

At the moment, wars seem to be fought at an economic/sanctions level. But with Space Force in place, the story changes.
Would like to get Saker to comment on this!
the seagull
- Alabama on December 27, 2019 · at 5:30 pm EST/EDT
  
  Talk about doing something and actually doing it are two different things, they talk about colonizing Mars but God put the nearest frozen water on a moon orbiting Jupiter so as for them to never run out of water but somehow mere humans are going get there and resolve the issue. Its a money pit just like space wars and our money pit is close to empty.
PokeTheTruth on December 27, 2019 · at 2:53 pm EST/EDT

Although I do not possess the credentials of a knowledgeable military strategist such as the Saker, Larchmonter445, Auslander, et al, I’d like to offer a layman’s tactical opinion regarding the subject of naval aircraft carriers.

This is taken from a visual observation only, with no concern for (1) the cost to build and maintain these surface ships, (2) the thousands of sailors necessary to operate and service them while at sea, (3) the capability of the air wings, (4) the onboard defensive systems, (5) and the surface and submarine support vessels that sail in close proximity to further extend a shield from successful attack.

An aircraft carrier is a floating airstrip that launches fighter-bomber airplanes. The ship’s technology has the ability to launch its entire air wing (70+ birds) in an elapsed time of 30 minutes. When they finish dropping bombs they return to the “bird farm”. Jet planes are unable take off from the short flight deck without the assistance of steam enabled catapults. Modern carriers have four catapults that launch aircraft; two are located forward near the starboard side and center line of the ship and the other two are approximately amidships (middle of the vessel) closer to the port side, aligned with the part of the deck that is offset from the main flight deck. The offset deck is longer in length and used by the returning planes to land. This flight deck design allows planes to simultaneously take off and land.

Here is picture number 1 taken facing the bow of the USS Eisenhower, CVN 69 (see: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/531f4b1beab8ea2b5328e9c9-750-910.jpg ).

The length of the runway needed for a jet plane to take off is around 300 feet compared to the entire length of the deck which is around 1,100 feet from stern to bow. The picture clearly shows 3 of the 4 catapults in operation (the catapult strips can be distinguished by their worn grey color on the flight deck). The 4th one is hidden underneath the row of planes lined up on the starboard side of the ship. The location of the catapults are an integral design of the flight deck and cannot be moved.

The primary function of the carrier is to launch aircraft. In order to do that, it must have sufficient runway to enable a jet to take off with the assistance of the steam catapult and the speed of the carrier moving through the water to create enough lift over the wings of the plane to take off. Now, what is the most critical part of the carrier necessary to do its job: the catapults, attack aircraft or the flight deck itself?

The answer is the flight deck and specifically, that part of the deck towards the last 100 feet forward of the catapults. Destroy that part of the deck alone means there isn’t enough deck to launch planes. It doesn’t matter if the returning aircraft are able to land approaching from the stern of the ship; what is important is they can’t take off and without that last 100 feet of runway, they are virtually useless to project air power.

However aircraft carriers don’t sail unprotected; they are surrounded by surface warships and submarine boats operating together in a convoy or in modern terms, a “Strike Group”. See picture number 2:

http://www.public.navy.mil/AIRFOR/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspx

In the second picture, we see these ships sail in a defensive pattern, like links in a chain. Disable one of the links (warships) and that opens up an attack lane to pinpoint a hit to the carrier with a barrage of anti-ship missiles targeting the critical area of the flight deck mentioned above.

During World War II in the Pacific at the Coral Sea Battle on May 25, 1942, the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown was knocked out of combat status for 5 days after heroic repairs were made in Pearl Harbor to ready her again for service. One 551 pound armor-piercing gravity bomb dropped on the carrier flight deck by a Japanese aircraft did the majority of the damage (see: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/youve-got-three-days-repairing-the-yorktown-after-coral-sea/ ).

Once ordnance detonates above or below deck(s), all chaos will ensue and the ship’s damage control parties as well as from the accompanying Strike Group will assemble to save the carrier and the crew from being crippled or suffer a complete loss at sea. These ships will become vulnerable to attack too, as they will collapse their pattern to “close ranks” to protect the aircraft carrier.

The goal of attacking an aircraft carrier should not be just to sink it but to neutralize its most critical function, that of launching its attack airplanes. It then becomes useless flotsam, good only for seagulls to fly over and indiscriminately deposit their bodily waste.
Joshua on December 27, 2019 · at 8:41 pm EST/EDT

Honestly, given recent technological developments (which have been openly declared and confirmed)…
My assesment is this…
The aircraft carrier is an extremely effective compliment of any power’s arsenal. However, its best use is as a compliment of coastal defences and strategic forward deployed installations. Otherwise their defensive capabilities are inadequate (without properly effective compliment) for long range deployment.
I feel compelled to say that the Admiral Kuzetsnov’s performance during the Battle of Allepo was absolitely vital and decisively effective. They were running around the clock flight schedule in concert with the very effective ground based contingent that was already operating in theater.
The results are (and were immediately) self evident. *This is where we insert my genuine admiration* I recall a confirmed loss of exactly one fighter jet from the carrier (unless I’m mistaken) due to missed landing (pilot recovered, I believe)….
Seriously dude, that’s f@$&€×g impressive. Just sayin’.
- Paul holland on December 28, 2019 · at 11:28 pm EST/EDT
  
  I agree.
  
  Clearly if China is cloning Kuz’s in 2019, its a good design. Continue the rebuild and build a Storm carrier.
Robert Alexander on December 27, 2019 · at 10:36 pm EST/EDT

The Falkland Islands War was in the 80s…. Oh, wait!!!!
Alternate History on December 28, 2019 · at 1:03 am EST/EDT

The Kuznetsov has solid bones. It should be refurbished re-purposed to more helicopter and reconnaissance role aircraft than attack aircraft. Why waste a solid ship on an outmoded role.
Biswapriya Purkayastha on December 28, 2019 · at 5:24 am EST/EDT

The Kuznetsov was never a good ship because she was built for the wrong role and was obsolete before she was even laid down. Even if she had had proper maintenance she would always have been a ridiculous floating white elephant.

Why?

The purpose of the Kuznetsov was to provide fleet defence in the case of a WWII style naval conflict. Apparently the Soviet designers of the 1970s-80s still expected a Battle of the Coral Sea/Leyte Gulf/Okinawa or at least a Hunt the Bismarck style situation, which of course was patently absurd. Naval battles of the old style are over; everyone could see that as long ago as Korea.

But like the old 1930s aircraft carrier designs, which routinely included cruiser-sized gun turrets for defence against surface threats, the Soviet designers packed their aircraft-carrying ships with missiles, with the air wing almost an afterthought. This made the extremely bad class of ships known as the Kiev Class “aircraft carrying cruiser”; not very effective as cruisers, because of having to waste space on an air wing, and extremely ineffective as carriers, because the small flat deck meant for Yak 38s and helicopters hardly accomodated anything like a viable air group. Apparently this design philosophy, if one can give it such a title, forgot that for the carrier the air wing was supposed to be the purpose of its existence, and the ship’s aircraft, along with escorts, would protect it.

This has next to nothing to do with the Montreux Convention that regulated passage through the Bosphorus, as Saker claims. After all, when the USSR finally decided to build a genuine aircraft carrier, the Ulyanovsk class, where was it laid down? The same Ukraine shipyards as the ridiculous “aircraft carrying cruisers,” that’s where. And there was absolutely nothing stopping the USSR from building more shipyards capable of constructing carriers elsewhere, if Montreux was such an insurmountable obstacle.

Obviously, therefore, Montreux was not an obstacle and the USSR’s choice to build “aircraft carrying cruisers” was a deliberate one, not one forced on it.

It was not as though the USSR didn’t actually know the value of carriers. Stalin had ordered carrier construction in the 1930s but it was interrupted by WWII. After that the USSR again initiated carrier designs in the 1950s, only to be scotched by Khrushchev. And when it finally built the Moskva class helicopter carriers in the 60s and the Kiev class in the 70s/80s, it was in the teeth of demands to build genuine carriers like the Amerikastani ones. Had it built real carriers, by now it would have had enough experience with them to have been not far behind the Amerikastanis. Instead, of course, it is now decades behind even China, which had no carrier at all until 2011.

Then, the primary reason why the Kuznetsov’s air group is ineffective, and will remain ineffective no matter what the aircraft it would carry: the ski jump chosen as the launching method, instead of catapults. This again goes back to the idea that battle damage might render a catapult ineffective, but a ski jump will stay in action: any such battle,of course, has been extinct since WWII. A ski jump can only launch aircraft with high thrust to weight ratios; a fighter, no matter how good, can only take off with a fraction of its maximum load of weapons and fuel. Again, this was to be remedied in the Ulyanovsk with catapults like Amerikastani carriers….and, yes, let’s look at that E2C Hawkeye Saker mentions.

The USSR knew all about the Hawkeye and had designed a similar AWACS aircraft, the Yak 44, which would have been launched by catapult from the Ulyanovsk and its successors. Unfortunately the aircraft, after reaching the mock-up stage, was cancelled at the murder of the Soviet Union.

None of this is mentioned by Saker; either he does not know of it or he is not mentioning it for reasons of his own. Either he is not eligible to write this article or he is being dishonest.

As far as the corvettes Saker loves so, here are the problems with them:

1. They are small ships with small ordnance loads. Russia is now incapable of building even the Lider Class destroyer, which would have had a reasonable range and size. Therefore any enemy which stays out of easy range of a corvette’s missiles or has the ability to shoot down ten or fifteen missiles has rendered the corvette useless.

2. Corvettes can’t even adequately defend themselves: they have either to stay in the coastal zone, protected by coastal air and sea defences (in which case they might as well be land based) or they have to go on suicide missions into airspace controlled by enemy aeroplanes launched by, well, aircraft carriers.

3. Shooting missiles at ISIS in Syria from the Caspian Sea is a *little* different from shooting missiles at an Amerikastani battle group.

When did Russia ever use carriers in combat? Well….in Syria, where the Kuznetsov had to do what? Fulfil the exact same role as Amerikastani aircraft carriers, that is, power projection ashore.

And why should Russia then need carriers? I can think of these scenarios:

1. Economic warfare by NATO short of all out full scale war. Amerikastan last year was already babbling about militarily blockading Russia. That would not be difficult since Russia’s geography means every single one of its ports, without exception, is covered by geographic chokepoints at a distance from its shores. What will Russia do if the Baltics are blockaded, and the Bosphorus, and the Sea of Japan? Go to full WWIII mode? Somehow I do not think so. Yet unless it has carriers to break the blockade, it has no other option (assuming it does not want to surrender).

2. Force projection ashore in support of an ally, as in Syria.

3. As the Arctic ice melts, Russia will have to choose between defending its exclusive economic zone there or have it looted by NATO pirates. If it chooses to defend its zone, it will either have to depend on an enormous number of shore based installations, on the inhospitable Siberian landmass, or to use a few carriers, each of which can control a huge area of ocean. Which do you think is the more logical option?

4. To deter war. Amerikastani politicians are military illiterates. Amerikastani generals and admirals are political toadies. The reality of aircraft carrier obsolescence, assuming that is a reality (something I do not accept, as i have stated above) does not matter to them. A Russia without aircraft carriers to them simply means a weaker Russia, one that can be more easily pushed around without a too great risk of war. Is or is not it true that when Amerikastani “missile defences” were placed in Poland “against Iran”, in 2013-14, Amerikastanis immediately started talking about a “winnable” nuclear war and “destroying all of Russia’s missiles in the boost phase”? Is it or is it not true that the fixed ambition of Amerikastan is to destroy and subjugate Russia? Is it or is it not true that if Russia depends on its hypersonic missiles to protect itself, it only has the choice between WWIII and destruction, or capitulation?

And given that according to Amerikastanis themselves aircraft carriers are a powerful tool of geopolitical leverage, will a Russian carrier fleet not at least give Amerikastan pause in any attempt to impose facts on the ground,or more accurately, on the seas?

Of course it will.

Why do you imagine the Chinese are so frantically building aircraft carriers – real carriers, not “aircraft carrying cruisers”, please note – if carriers are obsolete?

All this is not to say that the Kuznetsov needs saving. In fact the earlier that heap of junk is scrapped the better. It is, however, to say that Russia can justify a carrier fleet on perfectly utilitarian grounds, not just as a vanity project.

Having said that, if Russia wants to buy more carriers, what can it do? Build them? Perish the thought. Russian incompetence at shipbuilding is incredible and staggering. It, in fact, cannot even measure up to the ability of the USSR to build ships in the 1960s. It is too incompetent to even build a destroyer. It hasn’t even been able to raise the sunken dry dock or construct another yet, though it desperately needs it, and not just for the Kuznetsov. Build a carrier? Don’t make me laugh.

Given that, the only practical answer is to pay* China, already decades ahead of Russia in shipbuilding and blazing further ahead by the minute, to build carriers, and destroyers, and perhaps cruisers, for the Russian Navy. It’s either that or become even more of a laughing stock than it already is.

*Not necessarily in money; China would welcome Russian turbines, aircraft engines, electronics and weapons, as well as carrier borne aircraft.
- Paul holland on December 28, 2019 · at 11:22 pm EST/EDT
  
  Didn’t Russia accomplish the same thing as a carrier with an air strip, some condors with S400’s inside and some fighters ?
- Belisarius on December 29, 2019 · at 2:57 am EST/EDT
  
  My friend, I believe you are unfair to Shaker.
  
  First of all, Shaker did not limit his procurement suggestion to Corvettes alone. In fact, the first thing he suggested is “multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN.” Moreover, corvettes were the fourth item in a list of five! Accordingly, your focusing to corvettes seems disingenuous to me.
  
  Then, you forget to account for the range of the modern Russian anti-ship missiles. Zircon has a quoted operational range of 400 km, P-800 Oniks 600 km, and Kalibr can go up to 2,500 km. The range, speed, flight profile, and maneuverability of these weapons can put any navy at risk.
  
  What is more—and here is where Saker has a point—many of the Russian anti-ship missiles can be launched by submarines. Might I remind you the 2006 incident when a Chinese Song-Class submarine surfaced within five miles of the USS Kitty Hawk airplane carrier in the Pacific Ocean? Indeed, by virtue of their stealth, and also the range of their weapons, submarines can control vast swaths of ocean.
  
  Perhaps, a carrier group can defend against some of these missiles. The question, then, becomes not only against which, but also how many can a carrier group can shoot down?
  
  Zircons are presently generally accepted as unstoppable. Yet, for the sake of this argument, let us suppose that a Yassen-class submarine captain decides to launch its full battery of 40 Zircons to ensure penetration of the defenses of a carrier group via saturation. I could not find the cost of the Zircons, but suppose that each Zircon missile costs USD $5 million. Thus, this hypothetical attack will cost $200 million to destroy a multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier and its airwing.
  
  In conclusion, economics alone dictate that the advantage goes to the missiles. Of course, sinking an aircraft carrier will most likely signal the start of WW3. Thus, it has become a game of chicken, and what constitutes a red line for Russia.
  
  As for the question: Does Russia need aircraft carriers? My thinking is that this depends on Russian objectives and the economics. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat; so, the question becomes which way is more cost-effective.
  - Biswapriya Purkayastha on December 29, 2019 · at 10:13 pm EST/EDT
    
    At any point where you are using submarines, you have already ceded control of the surface to the enemy. Submarines are, assuming you aren’t going to try to attack the other side’s commercial shipping, vessels of reaction, not proactive.
    
    And let’s not forget:
    
    Submarines are in fact highly dependent on surface conditions to survive. After Putin for reasons only known to himself abandoned the Cam Ranh Bay base in Vietnam, all Russian bases that can host submarines are in those wochokepoint-blockaded ports. Even if Tartus is upgraded to a submarine capable port, that’s blocked by the fact that the Mediterranean is closed off at Gibraltar. All those chokepoints can be made effectively submarine proof by enemy anti submarine patrols.
    
    In fact the initial rationale for the Kiev Class “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser” was that it would, apart from fleet protection during (nonexistent for thirty years by that point) naval battles, provide a “blue zone” near Soviet shores where Soviet SSNs could lurk without risking being destroyed by enemy aircraft carrier aviation. Now with land based anti ship missiles that “blue zone” is no longer necessary, but the fact remains that submarines are extremely dependent on safe surface conditions to survive and operate. Without aircraft carrier cover your subs, against any capable enemy anti submarine ability, won’t survive for very long. You *may* be able to get one or two spectacular successes, but unless it’s a full scale nuclear exchange, your submarines will be picked off one by one before you can do much with them, certainly before you can change the course of the war with them.
    
    Then, by the time you’re reduced to using submarines you’re already at war. Carriers are a fairly good way of preventing war. Say Amerikastan threatens to blockade St Petersburg and Kronstadt? Put a carrier (a real carrier, not a useless “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”, one that actually has deterrent value) with escorts off Denmark. Let’s see what happens to the blockade plans then.
    - Belisarius on January 02, 2020 · at 3:08 am EST/EDT
      
      Very interesting thoughts.
      I concede that each vessel has a particular role that suits it better, and each has its own set of weaknesses.
      
      That said, I disagree with the statement that, “submarines are extremely dependent on safe surface conditions to survive and operate.” Modern submarines, even non-nuclear one (air-independent), can stay underwater for prolonged periods—and can launch their missiles while underwater. For example, see here: https://youtu.be/EV29Tr_PM70?t=128
      
      Granted, I am not a naval officer, but from my readings in various military sites I understand that this stealth presents a threatening uncertainty to any navy. Thus, for the first time since the Athenian alliance, no navy can sail with impunity !
      
      I also disagree with the statement that submarines need air protection to operate. Why? Because some of their missiles can out-range any naval aircraft. Accordingly, what the submarines do need is good intelligence. It is my understanding that since the ’70s, the USSR, and now Russia, has been actively tracking every carrier group. With such intelligence, the submarines can keep themselves out of harm’s way, and launch their long-ranged missiles.
      
      But let us not get derailed. My central point is that Saker did not focus on any one particular ship. Instead, he stated that, rather than spending money on aircraft carriers, Russia can use these funds in a more meaningful way. Submarines and various types of surface ships can work in a complimentary fashion, and Russia can get more “bang for the buck.”
      
      Thus, the true question is whether aircraft carriers are cost effective? They do cost a lot of money, and are easy targets. Is there anything they can do more effectively that the other vessels cannot?
      
      As for homeland protection, I do not see such a role for the aircraft carrier. The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles alone, if they live to their hype, can be a stupendously effective defense: their range, speed, and flight characteristics have converted the Mediterranean sea into a kill box. In the Pacific, these missiles can keep enemy navies too far away to present any threat to Russia.
      
      Neither do I see a role to enforce “freedom of seas” against maritime blockades. Such an act is a casus beli, and very likely a red-line by Moscow. An all-out war with Russia can quickly escalate in a nuclear war.
      
      That said, I still think that having the ability to quickly bring a few dozen aircraft in an allied theater—as Russia did in Syria—provides flexibility in operations. For example, Libya and Iran can become such theaters.
    - Belisarius on January 04, 2020 · at 3:10 am EST/EDT
      
      You wrote:
      « All those chokepoints can be made effectively submarine proof by enemy anti submarine patrols. »
      
      It took me a while, but I finally found the information to address your concern.
      
      I would like to remind you the 2017 incident, when the Russian diesel-electric attack submarine “Krasnodar” submarine evaded all NATO’s attention.
      
      The sub entered the Mediterranean in *plain* sight, challenging NATO.
      Obviously, new submarines are items of keen interest: How noisy is it? What are its unique sound signatures? How long can its batteries last? Does it carry any new equipment?
      
      So, the US responded by employing five anti-submarine frigates, the USS George H.W. Bush nuclear aircraft carrier, a few MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, and a P-8 Poseidon sub-hunting aircraft to follow the submarine…
      
      Everything was going well… until the sub submerged outside the coasts of Libya——at which point, it simply vanished.
      
      Then, out of the blue on May 29, the submarine launched a series of cruise missiles towards Syria’s besieged city of Palmyra, striking Islamic State targets and killed militants. Very importantly, the Krasnodar did *not* surface to communicate or to fire. This displayed not only stealth and seamanship, but also the possession and processing of very accurate target information.
      
      This incident indicates that Russia produces a new breed of submarines that can evade a concerted NATO effort to track them. What is more, the range of their missiles is such, that can fire at any target while being out of harm’s way. Possessing such stealth and firing range, these vessels can clearly pose a great threat to any navy.
      
      And this is why the Saker wonders if the aircraft carriers have any value in our days.
      
      https://fortunascorner.com/2017/10/21/russian-ghost-submarine-u-s-pursuers-deadly-new-cold-war/
- Banditko on December 29, 2019 · at 7:15 pm EST/EDT
  
  Interesting post. Allow me to offer my 5 cents.
  
  While Russia’s ship-building capacity is far from perfect, you are exaggerating. After all, they are able to build large nuclear powered icebreakers, unlike anyone else. Of course, these are not aircraft carriers but still it indicates a vital ship-building capacity. They have considerable expertise in designing and building smaller ships and civilian (transport) ships, as well. So some respectable ship-building is present there. They also can gain (or regain) experience by dealing with the large battle cruisers, the ones they are modernizing now. It shouldn’t be a far reach for them to build destroyers or similar category of ships. Aircraft carriers would be more of a challenge but the problem is not the expertise alone as much as the finances.
  
  They are also quite capable in terms of submarines, a field where the US has fallen behind, even behind China (if China is the measure of comparison).
  
  It needs to be pointed out that Russia does not have the money press as the US and despite its large territory and resources, the population is just a half of that of the US. Therefore, it makes sense that they would not be able to match the naval capabilities or the general military size of countries like the US or China. At the same time, it is not necessary to match that from purely practical point of view. Why would they constantly feel the need to match up to some externally imposed standards? Some people just want to live and would prefer to not be disturbed and competing all the time. Of course, to have the comfort of an undisturbed life, you need to be able to protect yourself, which they are quite capable to. I agree with your point that being able to protect yourself is one thing and your adversary’s perception of your abilities is a slightly different thing. The US Americans have a considerable taste of exaggeration mixed with thirst for dominance battles and if they don’t see it from you, they imagine that you are incapable. On the other hand, you can totally be incapable but create the perception and then they will see you as capable. For them it’s all about perception and reality is loosely related to that. In that sense, Russia fulfilled quite well and much cheaper the US need for exaggerated capacity via Russia’s strategic nuclear force. It will continue to serve as a deterrent and Russians are free to concentrate their resources on more useful things than aircraft carriers and constant dominance battles.
  
  On the possible blockade of Russia’s ports, these are just sick dreams of some US drunk oligarchs. It is not possible to achieve. All blockades would be way too close to Russia mainland and can be attacked without the need for power projection abilities. This is purely defensive situation for Russia and they are strong at that. They can simply fly airplanes from their territory or use cruise missiles from large distance. In the extremely unlikely case that such a blockade can withstand, I do believe that Russia will escalate to a WWIII. Since such a setting represents an existential threat, it is well within what the nuclear doctrine of Russia’s considers as a reason to respond with nuclear weapons. This is clear for everyone. Do I think that they would do it? Yes, I’m quite convinced that if needed, they would do it and they should. If you are faced with an adversary that is willing to put you to extinction, it is equally suicidal to accept their terms or destroy them via nukes. That’s why I say that they ‘should’ use their nukes, as any other nation or person should if they are in a comparable situation. But I might be wrong here. I’m open to corrections.
  - Biswapriya Purkayastha on December 29, 2019 · at 10:37 pm EST/EDT
    
    In another response I have addressed the question of submarines. Briefly, they are very dependent on the absence of surface enemy control for their survival. This is especially true of diesel electric submarines, which, no matter how quiet, have to come to snorkel depth or even to surface to recharge their batteries. All the enemy has to do is take them out then. And nuclear submarines might not have to do so, but their coolant pumps have to be run constantly to keep their reactors from melting down, and this makes them *always* more noisy and more detectable than any diesel electric submarine.
    
    Then, Russian shipbuilding capabilities. There’s a fundamental difference between building a civilian ship, like an icebreaker or a deep sea submersible (both fields in which Russia lead the world) and a naval ship of any size. Russia had the world’s best cruisers, of which it has reportedly abandoned plans to upgrade the remaining couple and to mothball or retire then instead, because it’s just too much. The long awaited Lider Class destroyer is no longer even talked about. Remember the Mistral helicopter carriers Russia ordered from France? That was because Russia couldn’t build any of its own. There’s been endless talk about Russia creating new designs (even better ones) as replacements, but five years down the line, where are they? China could build, launch, for out, and commission a full sized carrier in that time.
    
    This is not to say that China and Russia can’t learn from each other in shipbuilding. China needs reactors for planned nuclear carriers but has not been successful in designing any. They can get the Russians to design nuclear reactors like the icebreaker ones for their carriers. They can also collaborate with Russia in aircraft carrier catapult development, since they’re like the Amerikastanis having trouble with the EMALS (should have stuck with the tried and tested steam catapult). In addition Chinese aircraft engines are admittedly underpowered and they need Russian engines (and radars and avionics). So collaboration between the two countries is a natural choice.
    - Banditko on December 30, 2019 · at 4:46 pm EST/EDT
      
      Cooperation can be positive, but I’m not convinced how good it would be for Russia to become more dependent on China. While in terms of large surface ships the Russian navy is lagging behind, the news I’ve seen still indicate interest in building the Lider-class destroyers and the Russians haven’t given up on the Kirov-class battle cruisers — Admiral Nakhimov is still (although for very long) expected to be finished. There is some hope. It also seems that there is interest in aircraft carriers, which is the main topic of this article. In the current state of the Russian navy, aircraft carriers are too much to expect or desire. Not anytime soon. Although I think it’s quite likely that Kuznetsov will be repaired and updated. It won’t be scraped so easily. However, strictly speaking Kuznetsov isn’t an aircraft carrier.
      - Anaam on December 30, 2019 · at 7:21 pm EST/EDT
        
        It would be suicidal for Russia to depend on China for capital ships, (also ridiculous and unnecessary ). The relative between the two is pragmatic and temporary.
        
        Anaam on December 30, 2019 · at 7:47 pm EST/EDT
        
        Apple Autocomplete sucks, I meant to write: “The relationship between the two countries is pragmatic and temporary.
    - Belisarius on January 02, 2020 · at 5:20 am EST/EDT
      
      My friend,
      I wonder how recent is you information.
      
      You write:
      «Briefly, they [the submarines] are very dependent on the absence of surface enemy control for their survival.»
      As I have written above, considering the range of their missiles, I find this statement rather problematic. Submarines only need proper intelligence to simply stay out of harm’s way.
      
      The you write:
      «This is especially true of diesel electric submarines, which, no matter how quiet, have to come to snorkel depth or even to surface to recharge their batteries»
      Might I remind you that recent developments in air-independent propulsion have rendered this information outdated? The German Type 212 can stay underwater for three weeks, by using hydrogen peroxide to charge its fuel cells. The Russian Project 677 Lada-class “Kronstadt” submarine reforms the diesel fuel itself to achieve the same result, with a similar underwater endurance. Furthermore, let us not forget that diesel-electric subs are considered «brown water» vessels that patrol the shores—hence, they benefit from the land and air defenses.
      
      In any case, I’m getting the impression that you have a tendency to lose the forest for the tree, derailing the conversation.
      
      Once again, the question is whether it wise to spend money on air-craft carriers, or use the money on procure a score of smaller but more cost-effective crafts—including submarines and surface vessels.
- Anonymous on December 30, 2019 · at 1:43 am EST/EDT
  
  @”Biswapriya Puryaastha”
  
  You wrote:
  Either he[Saker] is not eligible to write this article or he is being dishonest.
  
  Are you serious? What are your qualifications that you think either Saker or anyone else is “not eligible” to write this or any article? Are you a serving or retired navy captain of a Capital ship? Then you go even more over the top by writing “or he [Saker] is being dishonest”, are you telepathic? The most extreme you could reasonably state is “he may” not “he is”.
  
  I’m curious how you acquired naval experience: I didn’t know Nepal had a navy (your name implies eastern India/Bengal or Nepal).
  
  You then go on and state a falsehood that Russia doesn’t even possess the ability to build destroyers and that’s why Russia limits itself to only building corvettes: that’ll come as news to both the Chinese and Indians given they’ve both recently acquired frigates, cruisers and destroyers designed and built in Russia. The chinese bought sovremenny class destroyers that were built in Russia in 2004-2006, the Indians have bought frigates built in Russia including a contract signed in 2018 for 2 more Russian built frigates.
  
  It gets even more ridiculous when you claim China is decades ahead of Russia in warship building even though you inadvertently admit that China didn’t even possess an aircraft carrier till 2011, so not not even a decade has passed (2019-2011 = 8 years) and magically China is decades ahead of Russia? Don’t make me laugh. Have you been to Dalian shipyards?
  
  What”s next? Are you going to claim that chinese space capsules are decades ahead of Russia’s even though the whole world knows that the chinese space capsules are poorly built knock offs of older generation Soyuz space capsules that China acquired via technology transfer from Russia under a paid contract. Even China’s tiakonaut spacesuit are faithful copies of Russian design.
  
  Here’s a quote from a retired chinese naval officer:
  “Chinese military and political figures say that while their nation’s fleet has more ships [mostly green water coastal ships], America has more powerful ones, and overall supremacy at sea.
  
  “The Chinese navy is at least three decades behind the United States,” a retired Chinese naval officer told Reuters
  
  You bring up valid points about the fallacy of relying on corvettes for naval defense and provide good insight into the role aircraft carriers in terms of naval defense, however, the tone of your postings is counterproductive in convincing readers as to the merits of your arguments.
  - Biswapriya Purkayastha on December 30, 2019 · at 2:27 am EST/EDT
    
    1. Frigates are not destroyers. The Lider Class destroyer was supposed to be inducted into the Russian Navy long before this. Where are they?
    
    2. I’m ex-Indian Air Force, if that’s any of your business.
    
    3. China is forging *ahead* in shipbuilding, while Russia is clearly in swift *regression*. Ask the Russians to even build another Kuznetsov today, and they can’t. They can’t even upgrade the Pyotr Velikyy and Admiral Nakhimov cruisers as planned.
    
    4. China’s space programme has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, so your mentioning it is pointless.
    
    Thank you for your response. It’s always gratifying to find someone who can make you further strengthen your arguments.
    - amarynth on December 30, 2019 · at 6:24 am EST/EDT
      
      Well, obviously you have something to say.
      
      But this part of what you have to say is not welcome: “None of this is mentioned by Saker; either he does not know of it or he is not mentioning it for reasons of his own. Either he is not eligible to write this article or he is being dishonest.”
      
      Insulting a man on his own blog for what *you would have liked him to say*, not only makes it clear that you did not do your homework, but also that you’re prone to blowhard statements. Factually that what you allege has no validity.
      
      Your contribution as a whole will be better received if you do it without insulting The Saker, or the other commentators. We try to keep a clean commenting environment here.
      - Anonymous on December 30, 2019 · at 7:17 pm EST/EDT
        
        Well done Amarythn for agreeing with user anonymous (ie. me) and reemphasizing his point that accusing the writer (in this case Saker) of lying and making blowhard statements (tone) is counterproductive in convincing readers. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ;)
    - Anonymous on January 02, 2020 · at 5:26 am EST/EDT
      
      «I’m ex-Indian Air Force, if that’s any of your business.»
      
      My friend, with all due respect, this does not mean much—both a pilot and a janitor can be members of an air-force. That said, my experience with professional military men—in the US, Russia, and Greece—is that they are typically very humble men, a humility based in the knowledge of their limitations. This is not the feeling I am getting here.
Paul holland on December 28, 2019 · at 11:11 am EST/EDT

IMO Russia should make a small but spunky QE sized (or smaller) carriers with 10-15 aircraft. The new engine’d su 57(k) will be able to leap off a QE sized ski jump carrier with stunning authority. Make it nuclear for low operating cost. Maybe just build 1 or 2.

It would mostly be used to carry the flag and show Russia’s engineering ability. What would look better than a lean/mean small carrier with su 57’s leaping off of it ?? Why does France and the UK have carriers ? To show the flag mostly.

Its money well spent. Russia might need more subs as you say, from a tactical standpoint. But subs just sit there where nobody see’s them, then they disappear into the water for months on end.
Serbian girl on December 28, 2019 · at 11:20 am EST/EDT

A very interesting article especially for those, like me, with no military knowledge.

Regarding missiles, I was under the impression that missiles not only end the need for aircraft carriers (I e. No need for airplanes on carrier) but also that missiles end the need for submarines ? My question is, can sea denial be achieved via missiles alone?
- vot tak on December 29, 2019 · at 12:58 am EST/EDT
  
  Serbian Girl
  
  There is no such thing as a magic weapon. No weapon remains invulnerable for long, a counter is always eventually developed. It is never a good idea to rely upon one type of weapon alone. This reduces the needed efforts of one’s adversaries to find a counter considerably and leaves one vulnerable once they develop a counter. Missiles need target designation to be effective and they can also be interfered with along their flight.
Fair dinkum on December 29, 2019 · at 7:41 am EST/EDT

Nuclear attack will not arrive via aircraft carriers, missiles or directed by satellites.
They will arrive in the most banal and ubiquitous package.
Shipping containers.
The consumers consumed by the devices of consumption.
vot tak on December 30, 2019 · at 12:27 am EST/EDT

Tom Welsh

“Second, it is one thing to send your carriers 8,000 miles to threaten the world’s richest and most powerful country in its territorial waters; quite another for that country to use carriers within its own waters to repel attackers”

Yup. Seabourne air power is very useful in extending one’s land based defenses.

“Kuznetsov’s missiles can sink an American carrier, regardless of how many aircraft she hosts. And even if the planes get airborne, the missile will sink their carrier long before they get anywhere near “Kuznetsov”.

All it takes is one Granit, or one Su-33 or MiG-29K successfully launching an airborne missile, to end any usn carrier’s offensive career. It’s not so much numbers of aircraft carried, but whether a sufficient number would be able to get through through the opponents defenses. The usn has no realistic counter to modern surface to surface missiles and their f-18 and f-35 aircraft are no match for experienced piloted Russian Sukhois and MiGs.

The thing is Russians balance their ship designs so they are not helpless when alone or things go awry. The usn doesn’t do this. There is no usn carrier even remotely capable in the manner an Admiral Kuznetsov is in this respect. The usn carriers are all wholly dependent on their escorts and aircraft. They have no realistic way to engage in combat otherwise.
Charles Carroll on December 30, 2019 · at 1:14 pm EST/EDT

The complexity itself in running an aircraft carrier or an F-35 is a factor to rule out Russia from building an aircraft carrier. Electronic warfare exacerbates the complexity. There are so many sub-systems and counter-systems defending against electronic warfare against such expensive targets that the military will soon be training an army of physicist equivalents to operate its platforms. One little glitch can make the entire edifice fatally vulnerable. The glitches keep being discovered and then another subprogram has to be installed (not just on the computer, but the whole operation with training etc. with possible glitches in the fix). Russia has addressed this issue on its internet by running it on its own system; otherwise it is impossible to defend against. The primary goal of the effectiveness of defense (in an actual war) has been lost sight of in the U.S. where MIC profits prevail as a goal.
Christophe on December 31, 2019 · at 2:14 am EST/EDT

Wow, a lot of respondents possess quite extensive understanding of military hardware, capacity, and strategy. It is certainly illuminating for me, as a neophyte, to suss out the parameters of the various ideological viewpoints currently battling for supremacy in geopolitical strategic planning. Many thanks to all the commenters presenting so many subtly conflicting viewpoints.

To add my own understanding, ideology, and viewpoint into the fray, I found it surprising how many commenters mentioned the primacy of economic realities and of the economic warfare currently being deployed, but only weighed in on economic strategies defensively regarding Russia. With a very active economic front in this war of attrition, is there any reason for Russia to abandon offensive maneuvers along this front, in favor of a purely defensive approach? The long defensive game can certainly stalemate an overly aggressive opponent while strengthening one’s own skills, tactics, and resources. Russia has played that defensive game brilliantly and may be too economically fragile at present to do otherwise. But, if she possesses enough redundant capital and manpower, I can see every reason to “double down” on building or rebuilding one or more aircraft carriers.

The United States is an excessively corrupt and insecure hegemon, and those attributes are easily leveraged against it. With China already building carriers for its own power-projection needs, Russia could, by building one new carrier and blustering about building a dozen more, easily maneuver the US into a panicked, useless, and bankrupting vanity project of increasing its own carrier fleet. If Russia has the resources, wasting them in order to divert the US into wasting far more of its own resources could win the economic war long before comparative military strength becomes a issue.

It really is an ideological question. If, in the age of nuclear deterrence and declining resources, economic warfare has attained primacy over conventional warfare, then the dick-measuring competition of military strength is temporarily reduced to an archaic fixation that can be weaponized against an insecure, backward opponent. That is a big if! Betting on economic over military primacy has to be timed perfectly, or the early adopter will be completely vanquished. On the other hand, judging from the backdrop of sanctions, tariffs, color revolutions, and the chaos caused by past-its-pull-date political jockeying in DC, I think the dangers associated with clinging to outmoded, circling-the-drain strategies are currently far greater than those stemming from early innovation.

So much of history comes down to timing. Are we living at a time when doubling down on business as usual is the winning strategy? Or is it a time when bold, risky innovation seizes the spoils? Or is it one of those times when recovering a discarded tradition offers the best outcome? Are the carrier panacea-peddlers in the ascendancy at the Department of the Navy? Are the congresscritters vulnerable to throwing more tribute at the pentagon right now? Does the current US election cycle make a vanity boondoggle more likely? Russia may be able to use the US’s suppression of creativity, immobilizing anxiety, and addiction to easy answers in order to break the bank — all for the cost of a measly carrier.
Charles Carroll on December 31, 2019 · at 11:13 am EST/EDT

Consider the lessons of Ho Chi Minh and Bin Laden (if you believe the official version). You defeat the Empire with asymmetrical warfare. Building air craft carriers is the opposite of asymmetrical warfare. If you believe the official version about Bin Laden, he made the Empire outspend him by 100,000 to 1.
Arthur G Brina on January 01, 2020 · at 10:12 am EST/EDT

The United States needs aircraft carriers. Russia (and every other country, but one) doesn’t.

It is a matter of geography and strategy.

The Americas are separated from the Eurasian/African landmass by thousands of miles of ocean on both sides. (And, if the Arctic ever warms up long enough to sustain surface naval operations, to the north.) If the Americans are going to project power into the Eastern Hemisphere, they are going to need aircraft carriers. Without them, the United States becomes a regional power.

Russia shares the Asian part of Eurasia with China and India; the European part with the EU. It enjoys the strategic advantage of interior lines. Strategically, it would be harder for to the Northern and Black Sea fleets to force passage into the North and Mediterranean Seas than it would be for its armies to reach the Rhine and the Adriatic. Admit it: Russia’s Pacific Fleet ventures from Vladivostock only as long as the US naval and air forces tolerate it.

Russia’s military is the most powerful force in the Eurasian landmass (China’s burgeoning military notwithstanding). It naval strategy should be directed at destroying US naval forces at sea within 1,000 kilometers of its coastline.

The Chinese have a different and very difficult challenge facing them. At present and well into the future, the Chinese cannot keep open the Straits of Malacca. Furthermore, the US Navy does not need aircraft carriers to close access to Chinese ports through the sea lanes north and south of Taiwan. In order to break the US naval blockade of China, the Chinese Navy must go out and defeat the US Navy in the Pacific Ocean and then on to the Indian Ocean. The Chinese will need to build up an aircraft carrier fleet comparable to that of the US Navy in order to accomplish this.