VMF vs. USN scenarios

They would have no where to put them if they had 2-3 carriers right now...

Some could be based in the Black Sea - at Sebastopol anchorage & esp. new Novorossiysk base with long piers.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/april/7008-russian-novorossiysk-black-sea-base-facilities-to-be-operational-in-2019.html
https://thesaker.is/novorossiysk-is-home-to-major-naval-base-of-the-russian-navy-black-sea-fleet/

They'll retain long range AshMs & won't be pure a/c carriers that r not allowed in the Black Sea. (Btw, that treaty may be changed later to allow the coastal states to keep them there.)
There'll be facilities for them by the time they appear. They need them for CGNs anyway.

Orions and Atlantics can be detected and identified from extreme ranges, which makes them clearly non combatants...

P-3s can launch Harpoons from up to 150 nmi (280 km) away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

Atlantics r also armed with anti-ship missiles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%A9guet_1150_Atlantic#Specifications_(Atlantique_2)

If they r non-combatants, I don't know what is! The USN routinely intercepted Soviet Tu-142s & Il-38s:
https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/1970s-page-1-tile.jpg
https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/1980s-page-13-tile.jpg

why waste aircraft to intercept such things when the enemy is ISIS?

not only: Syrian rebels too, which r being supported by NATO. Their planes could aid them by disrupting Adm. K group ops.

Your problem is you think that Russia needs to take your side seriously. In this instance, they didn't need to, so didn't do it, and that knowledge gets under your skin.

FYI, I'm not on their side, even while I live in the US.

..don't let it change your operational tempo one iota.

those planes can also hit Syrian naval & shore targets. Adm. K wasn't sending dozens of planes out like US CVNs do, so launching alert fighter now & then wouldn't have affected "optempo one iota".

The MiG-29K can carry the Kh-59M/M2 which has a version with nuclear warhead.

Those fighters would need to also carry drop tanks & AAMs; w/o a catapult, I doubt they could leave the deck with heavy nuclear missiles/bombs.
Their Granits which now can hit land targets would be better for nuclear strikes.
Some1 earlier suggested getting floating docks from China, but it'll take ~2 years, if not longer, to build & deliver it to Severodvinsk:
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/10/article/chinas-floating-dock-brings-hope-to-cuba/

By the time it could be there, the Adm. K would be in the 2 docks they r merging into 1.

But it's a lot easier to interdict a MiG-29 than several Granits, which could be launched from Oscar SSGNs from closer range.

Some could be based in the Black Sea - at Sebastopol anchorage & esp. new Novorossiysk base with long piers.

Get it through your head, they will send aircraft carriers to the northern fleet and the Pacific fleet... sending Russian carriers to the Med is like sending US carriers to operate in the Black Sea... the term shooting fish in a barrel springs to mind.

They'll retain long range AshMs & won't be pure a/c carriers that r not allowed in the Black Sea. (Btw, that treaty may be changed later to allow the coastal states to keep them there.)
There'll be facilities for them by the time they appear. They need them for CGNs anyway.

They would need about a dozen new large support and supply ships, plus some cruisers and destroyers to operate as part of the surface group... which will take 10 years to develop and build and put in to service too... not to mention basing for all those ships as well.

P-3s can launch Harpoons from up to 150 nmi (280 km) away

Subsonic Harpoons would not be that problematic in terms of self defence for a ship with the equivalent of two Pantsir batteries attached to its hull, plus four TOR batteries as well...

not only: Syrian rebels too, which r being supported by NATO. Their planes could aid them by disrupting Adm. K group ops.

The K wasn't doing anything other forces in Syria couldn't do instead. They had plenty of Su-24 and Su-34s that could drop dumb bombs on targets if MiG-29KRs and Su-33s weren't available.

those planes can also hit Syrian naval & shore targets.

Russian forces are there to defend Russian forces. Russian S-400s have not been used agaisnt Israeli attacks or NATO attacks using cruise missiles... why would they shoot down Orions or Posidens?

Adm. K wasn't sending dozens of planes out like US CVNs do, so launching alert fighter now & then wouldn't have affected "optempo one iota".

When your arrester gear is not working properly you don't launch aircraft you don't need to launch.

Are those su-33 and mig-29k able to launch nuclear armed tactical cruise missiles ? That would make them have 4 different ways of delivering nuks. Triade + carrier based airwing.

Possibly, but I doubt it... their primary role is air defence of the carrier and the ships operating with the carrier. They were testing attacking ground targets as an experiment, which seemed to go well, in terms of communications and planning and execution. The obvious problem was with the arrester gear which they could not fix in situ.

True, but again it depends on tactical situation. An Oscar has no choices on delivery method, while the Kuz does. If I was in the position of needing to be able to put tactical nukes on target I'd want options and flexibility.

That might be the thinking with regard the modifications to the Su-33 with their blind high altitude nav/bombing upgrade that they want their carriers to do more than just air defence and air support for surface groups. If they want landing ships at the very least they will need to support landing operations, but I rather doubt that would include the use of tactical nukes either.

I would suggest the only nukes the Navy will use will be fitted to anti ship missiles and torpedoes.

sending Russian carriers to the Med is like sending US carriers to operate in the Black Sea...

The Adm. K went to Med twice, & will go again after refit.

They would need about a dozen new large support and supply ships, plus some cruisers and destroyers to operate as part of the surface group... which will take 10 years to develop and build and put in to service too... not to mention basing for all those ships as well.

don't worry, they can ride at anchors & rotate with other ships to use piers when needed if there r not enough of them.

The K wasn't doing anything other forces in Syria couldn't do instead. They had plenty of Su-24 and Su-34s that could drop dumb bombs on targets if MiG-29KRs and Su-33s weren't available...why would they shoot down Orions or Posidens?

True, but for training purposes, they missed that opportunity to intercept, not shoot, potential adversary planes.

When your arrester gear is not working properly you don't launch aircraft you don't need to launch.

they found it out later, after losing 2 planes.

..I rather doubt that would include the use of tactical nukes either. I would suggest the only nukes the Navy will use will be fitted to anti ship missiles and torpedoes.

Ditto. There r enough subs & land based bombers to nuke targets on land. Even the USN AWs r not given tactical nukes, although their F-18s can carry them.

The Adm. K went to Med twice, & will go again after refit.

It went to Syria for some live action experience, which was rather valuable I think... you learn rather more from problems than you do when everything seems to be going fine.

Otherwise there is no point in operating the K there...

don't worry, they can ride at anchors & rotate with other ships to use piers when needed if there r not enough of them.

Why would they choose to be so half arsed about it?

It will be 10-15 years after they lay down a keel for a CVN before it is anywhere near close to service so it is not a huge problem because there is plenty of time to finance all the changes and upgrades needed to support carrier based operations.

True, but for training purposes, they missed that opportunity to intercept, not shoot, potential adversary planes.

They probably did it a dozen times on their way to the Med anyway... there is hardly much pride or honour in flying out to meet an MPA.

Otherwise there is no point in operating the K there...

all things considered, even after they get new CV/Ns, it'll be a good place to train in "an environment maximally approximating combat" for years to come.

Why would they choose to be so half assed about it?

it may not be a matter of choice, but of available time, space & $.
It's more important to build more & better icebreakers, roads, bridges & tunnels to Siberia & FE than long piers.

It is not just a matter of having a long enough pier... you need to be able to supply all the stuff a carrier needs in the volume it requires... not to mention have land based facilities for the better part of 2 thousand men to man it.

Sevastopol is a major Russian Naval base and they will likely train aircrews on their land based locations because they can probably manage that all year round, but that is no reason to base the vessel there.

If they are opening up the NSR then having their only carrier on the NSR makes a lot of sense... especially considering that from either the Northern fleet port or the Pacific fleet port they can access the rest of the world much more efficiently than from the Black Sea.

They wont be training in port much anyway... when they go on exercises it will be well away from home port.

Exercising in the Arctic will be valuable, but then sailing south and exercising in the Pacific will be useful as well... or going the other side and sailing down the Atlantic will be interesting... I am sure the UK will shit their pants when they see an actual carrier group made up of more than just a Corvette or Frigate sail past...

Sevastopol is a major Russian Naval base and they will likely train aircrews on their land based locations because they can probably manage that all year round, but that is no reason to base the vessel there.

IMO, all things considered, it's the best location for a training/experimental CV. It's closer to the Med./Red Seas & the Indian Ocean in case they need to send it there. The Zaliv shipyard has the biggest drydock in Russia:
https://zalivkerch.com/o-nas/nashi-vozmozhnosti/dokovyj-kompleks.html

https://kerchinfo.com/7742-postroit-li-zaliv-avianosec.html

IMO, all things considered, it's the best location for a training/experimental CV.

The Kuznetsov isn't a training carrier... and they have at least two land based alternative training areas for that role anyway.

The K will be an operational carrier and basing it in the Pacific Fleet or the Northern Fleet means direct access to most of the world.

It's closer to the Med./Red Seas & the Indian Ocean in case they need to send it there.

Which makes it closer to Europe and further away from everything else.

Russia doesn't need the K to deal with Europe, the focus on Russian carrier groups should be Africa and America and Asia.

GarryB wrote:The Kuznetsov isn't a training carrier... and they have at least two land based alternative training areas for that role anyway.

It's mostly training; NITKAs r only to train new pilots & then maintain their proficiency while it's in port, yard, &/ on deployments.

Which makes it closer to Europe and further away from everything else.

Not from the ME & Gibraltar! Sevastopol is closer to Gibraltar than its current base on Kola- 2,535 vs 3,600 nm:
http://ports.com/sea-route/port-of-gibraltar,gibraltar/port-of-murmansk,russia/

Russia doesn't need the K to deal with Europe, the focus on Russian carrier groups should be Africa and America and Asia.

It can reach N/E/S. Africa & SE Asia faster from the Black Sea; I doubt they'll send Adm. K over the NSR/Atlantic to Asia/America. New CV/Ns may be based on Kola & Kamchatka/Vladivostok, but the troubled old 1 isn't indispensable & costs more to keep there.

Even with all the upgrades, past bad performance does not guarantee future good results; I'll believe it when I see it spending more time at sea & w/o a tug than in repairs both pierside & in the yards.

It's mostly training; NITKAs r only to train new pilots & then maintain their proficiency while it's in port, yard, &/ on deployments.

There were land based training facilities at Nitka (spelling), but that was in Ukrainian territory in the Crimea, so they developed a place in Russian territory called Yeysk to duplicate that training facility... well now they should have access to both training ranges.

There is little to no benefit to having the Kuznetsov based there however...

It can reach N/E/S. Africa & SE Asia faster from the Black Sea; I doubt they'll send Adm. K over the NSR/Atlantic to Asia/America. New CV/Ns may be based on Kola & Kamchatka/Vladivostok, but the troubled old 1 isn't indispensable & costs more to keep there.

They are upgrading and fixing the propulsion systems on the vessel... that was part of the purpose of the upgrade and overhaul.

And why do you think it would cost more to keep a carrier in their largest two fleet bases?

Even with all the upgrades, past bad performance does not guarantee future good results;

What are you smoking? They built a carrier and it had some problems with its propulsion and its arrester gear... part of the upgrade will be to fix those problems but you are assuming the problems will remain or get worse?

Really?

I'll believe it when I see it spending more time at sea & w/o a tug than in repairs both pierside & in the yards.

OK now you are just being a dick. Over the last 30 years the first 10 they didn't have enough money or resources to keep their important stuff at sea all the time let alone an aircraft carrier. For the second decade they had more money but no reason to send it anywhere. This decade they have taken it out and given it a real test in a war zone and right now they have it in dry dock getting upgrades and repairs based on real world experience.

You clearly think the Russians are idiots to have spent all this money and time on something in your opinion will never leave the Black Sea and will just be used for training.

Recent history seems to show they can outwit the west without even trying... in fact it has been western actions that made the Russians and indeed the Iranians dominant forces in the middle east...

[quote="GarryB"]

There were land based training facilities at Nitka (spelling), ..

they now have 2 NITKAs

And why do you think it would cost more to keep a carrier in their largest two fleet bases?

it'll be farther away from deployment areas where it matters, more bad weather that can increase training/maintenance time, cause accidents/losses, & not helping Crimean economy with Ks of sailors & their dependents that could live & spend $ there.

part of the upgrade will be to fix those problems but you are assuming the problems will remain or get worse?

no, but the ship is old & new problems can come up, besides mistakes/mishaps could happen regardless the new gear they r installing on it, given that they r still on a learning curve.

You clearly think the Russians are idiots to have spent all this money and time on something in your opinion will never leave the Black Sea and will just be used for training.

not at all; they did the right thing upgrading the only 1 they've got, but even if they send it back to the E. Med or some other future war zone, it's a TAKR, not a CV capable of making much of a difference ashore. My understanding is that it'll be used mostly for training & evaluation of pilots, procedures, methods, tactics, etc., & to show the flag.

it'll be farther away from deployment areas where it matters,

Via the NSR they will be able to deploy almost anywhere vastly more quickly than from anywhere else.

Remember they need to have various large ships deployed with their carrier... this isn't the US navy where the whole point is the carrier... their large ships.... upgraded destroyers and cruisers will not be based in the Black Sea, so why base the carrier to protect them there too?

more bad weather that can increase training/maintenance time, cause accidents/losses,

Welcome to the real world... bad weather happens everywhere... they can move it if they need to or not if they don't.

Accidents can happen anywhere.

not helping Crimean economy with Ks of sailors & their dependents that could live & spend $ there.

The Crimea and the surrounds are already a popular summer holiday destination... filling the place up with Sailors and their families just leads to congestion and problems... they already have plenty of investment especially their own money to develop their region.

no, but the ship is old & new problems can come up, besides mistakes/mishaps could happen regardless the new gear they r installing on it, given that they r still on a learning curve.

Mr Fucking Sunshine... If they can't upgrade and operate an existing type then what is the point of having a navy... they will never be able to manage to build enough large ships to operate with it let alone new carriers to supplant and eventually replace it.

not at all; they did the right thing upgrading the only 1 they've got, but even if they send it back to the E. Med or some other future war zone, it's a TAKR, not a CV capable of making much of a difference ashore. My understanding is that it'll be used mostly for training & evaluation of pilots, procedures, methods, tactics, etc., & to show the flag.

Your understanding is wrong... it is a ship that carries aircraft to support Russian Naval operations... it is not something you can just base anywhere and use with whatever other ships you have on hand nearby... you would need at least an upgraded Kirov or an upgraded Slava class cruiser or two, plus 4-5 upgraded Sovremmeny or Udaloy class Frigates, together with some Gorshkov class frigates and perhaps a Gorshkov destroyer or two in the future to operate with it as well... there simply are not enough large vessels in the Black Sea to operate with the K in any meaningful way.

Via the NSR they will be able to deploy almost anywhere vastly more quickly than from anywhere else.

I won't repeat my answer to that anymore, see my old posts.

their large ships.... upgraded destroyers and cruisers will not be based in the Black Sea, so why base the carrier to protect them there too? ..you would need at least an upgraded Kirov or an upgraded Slava class cruiser or two, plus 4-5 upgraded Sovremmeny or Udaloy class Frigates, together with some Gorshkov class frigates and perhaps a Gorshkov destroyer or two in the future to operate with it as well... there simply are not enough large vessels in the Black Sea to operate with the K in any meaningful way.

In the Black Sea, there r enough ships, subs, Bastion AShMs, S-300/400s & naval aviation to protect it, & those big ships can come to the Med./Red/Arabian Sea from the Baltic, N. & Pac. Fleets as they did before. The USN & PLAN carrier escorts also don't deploy from just 1 fleet or homeport.

Accidents can happen anywhere.

with more frequency/probability in bad weather.

The Crimea and the surrounds are already a popular summer holiday destination...

the last few years were bad for the local economy, as most Russians go to Turkey & Thailand to enjoy the beaches.

The Black Sea is too small and too easy to close off so your only carrier is stuck right next to your country providing air support for ships that can already be supported by land based aircraft... how stupid is that?

In the Black Sea, there r enough ships, subs, Bastion AShMs, S-300/400s & naval aviation to protect it,

It is supposed to be protecting the ships it operates... if it needs land based protection then it is pretty pointless... you might as well base it somewhere else and just use all those ships and land based missiles and aircraft to protect them.

& those big ships can come to the Med./Red/Arabian Sea from the Baltic, N. & Pac. Fleets as they did before.

There are no advantages to basing the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea... quick access to the Med is useless... who are they going to rush there to defend... it is Indian country in the American Indian sense.

The Russian Navy is a global reach resource used to expand Russian influence and contacts with the countries of the world... no point in wasting time in the Med...

with more frequency/probability in bad weather.

Do you have any evidence to support that? Look at their major accidents and problems and AFAIK none of them occurred during storms or heavy bad weather... Kursk, et al.

the last few years were bad for the local economy, as most Russians go to Turkey & Thailand to enjoy the beaches.

Well that is something they need to sort out for themselves... competition is natural and normal...