Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GarryB wrote:You have to look at what the navies are for... for small or big island nations like the UK or the US respectively, the aircraft carrier projected power around the entire world.

Both air attack and ground attack in one mobile package.

Of course for the Soviets land attack was not an issue... that is what ICBMs were for.

The Soviet navy was to protect Soviet ports and therefore could rely on ground based air cover most of the time.

the Kiev and moskva classes were sub hunters where the helos hunted subs and in the case of the Kievs the fighters offered a limited fixed wing protection for the fleet hunting down subs. They were intended to protect friendly SSNs by shooting down enemy MPAs... which is about as much as you could expect from a Yak-38M.

The K and later models were intended to improve the air defence of a carrier group to enable the defence of the anti ship armed ships from enemy aircraft so they could close in and fire their missiles against enemy carriers and the ships supporting them.

The western use of carrier based aircraft for land attack is redundant now as the cruise missile offers similar performance without the risk or cost.... to send a manned aircraft into enemy airspace you need the aircraft plus further aircraft to deal with air defence systems and enemy fighters and might need to prepare the way by taking out air defence systems on the way to and from the target... in comparison firing 2-3 cruise missiles on different flight paths is cheaper and easier.

The change from the Su-33 to the MiG-29KR has nothing to do with the latters ground attack capability and everything to do with the fact that the latter was put into production for India so it was cheaper to order more for the RuNavy.

The Russians don't want US type carriers... they are too big and too expensive and don't offer anything new that would be useful.

They will likely put EM cats on their new designs but likely only so larger aircraft like AWACS aircraft can be used.

I agree, but I think that at least the two oceangoing fleets (the Northern and the Pacific ones) should receive one large carrier (carrying around 50-60 planes/ASW helos, not much need/money for supercarriers like the Nimitz- or Gerald Ford-class ones of Uncle Sam's navy, carrying around 80 planes), just in case if some enemies are crazy enough to attack Russia's submarine force or Acrtic territories of Russian interest, or the Far Eastern territories/important cities of Russia (Vladivostok, Khabarovsk and so on).

In the foreseeable future (around 2020-2040), Kalibr cruise missile-equipped Gorshkov-class frigates, but more likely the Tsirkon missile-equipped Lider-class destroyers will be able to at very least repel - if not partially/severely damage/destroy - a CSG-size naval formation

I think that aircrafts need a bigger ship.

kvs wrote:

Giulio wrote:I think that aircrafts need a bigger ship.

Russia does not need US style aircraft carriers to project colonial control.   The Cruise Princess is not happy about 2035.
Well, how many Syria style engagements is Russia going to be engaged in from now until then.    Action in Latin America,
Afrcia, South and South-East Asia?   No chance.   And the Kuznetsov was not needed for Syria anyway.

The Kuz itself could qualify as a super-carrier.

Russia needs super-carriers but can't make them because their shipyard is under NATO/Maidan control. Also their defense spending is very low that only allows a token, under-strength Navy.

Russia needs super-carriers but can't make them because their shipyard is under NATO/Maidan control. Also their defense spending is very low that only allows a token, under-strength Navy.

Russia is in no hurry to get large carriers... Strategic bombers carrying long range cruise missiles can deploy anywhere much faster than one or two carriers could.

Any future roaming Russian sub could also easily deliver cruise missile attack from almost any direction.

The primary use of a future large Russian carrier is to provide air defence for a naval group and they will be able to build that size ship rather easily.

If the Ukraine suddenly said they were sorry and asked Putin to take over and control all of the Ukraine the amount of money needed to get that country back into the 21st Century would bankrupt Russia or pretty much any other country... let alone reviving an old shipyard that is likely doomed... no NATO country will want a ship built there and now there will be no Russian orders... who exactly are they going to ever get work from? They have a very bleak future now. And they did it to themselves.

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:

Giulio wrote:I think that aircrafts need a bigger ship.

Russia does not need US style aircraft carriers to project colonial control.   The Cruise Princess is not happy about 2035.
Well, how many Syria style engagements is Russia going to be engaged in from now until then.    Action in Latin America,
Afrcia, South and South-East Asia?   No chance.   And the Kuznetsov was not needed for Syria anyway.

The Kuz itself could qualify as a super-carrier.

Russia needs super-carriers but can't make them because their shipyard is under NATO/Maidan control. Also their defense spending is very low that only allows a token, under-strength Navy.

Russia defense spending is roughly 40% -50% of the US defense spending.

Not small money.

Don't be fooled by the xchg rate, that showing only the level of trade ,commercial and financial relationship with the US.


And maybe it is hard to realise, but russia at the moment building its next generation aircraft carrier group.
Spending money to use the K and get experience from it.

That cost and mean more than cutting a few plate and making reactor vessel.

The most expensive component of a carrier group is not the ship itself, but the crew/industrial background.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:

Giulio wrote:I think that aircrafts need a bigger ship.

Russia does not need US style aircraft carriers to project colonial control.   The Cruise Princess is not happy about 2035.
Well, how many Syria style engagements is Russia going to be engaged in from now until then.    Action in Latin America,
Afrcia, South and South-East Asia?   No chance.   And the Kuznetsov was not needed for Syria anyway.

The Kuz itself could qualify as a super-carrier.

Russia needs super-carriers but can't make them because their shipyard is under NATO/Maidan control. Also their defense spending is very low that only allows a token, under-strength Navy.

Russia defense spending is roughly 40% -50% of the US defense spending.

Not small money.

Don't be fooled by the xchg rate, that showing only the level of trade ,commercial and financial relationship with the US.


And maybe it is hard to realise, but russia at the moment building its next generation aircraft carrier group.
Spending money to use the K and get experience from it.

That cost and mean  more  than cutting a few plate and making reactor vessel.

The most expensive component of a carrier group is not the ship itself, but the crew/industrial background.

50%? Not even close, even if you use an actual purchace power of the rub on Russian market its nowhere even remotely close to US military spending.

The last november was proposed the name of G Zhukov for the next Russian aircraft carrier.

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161116/1481462841.html

Two additional interesting links about the status of the project:

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160519/1436486269.html
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=417771

It would be good news to see the the first unit in 2025. It would be in the top of the new Russian armament generation of the first quarter of the XXi century.

PapaDragon wrote:
Here is what I think about this whole thing:

1) Russian military doctrine has no place for classic large dedicated AC. Any they might build will have to be multirole vessels: aircraft complement + anti ship weapons (2xUKSK will do) + standard AA and anti-sub package.

2 Ship will have to be nuclear powered with catapults. Primary fixed wing aircraft should be naval version of that light fighter that is being developed by MiG for UAE. That project is unexpected godsend for Russian naval aviation, now they need to capitalize on it. Larger fighters could also be used but just as backup and support option.

3) Types of wars that Russia is expected to fight means that for majority of time (95% or more) it will just be patrolling the oceans. Land attack missions like ones in Syria will be rare exceptions but they still need to be able to carry them out as well.

4) They should be smaller than even Kuznetzov and should be based on Lider destroyer. Designing separate AC project from scratch is waste of resources. (Even USMC these days is requesting small attack carriers with 20 jets. There is reason for this.)

5)  Majority of aircraft on board should in fact be helicopters. Anti-ship and more than anything, anti-sub missions will remain top priority for Russian Navy for decades to come. Land attacks will be rare occurrences as history has shown.

6) So default aircraft list should be: 1/3 fighter jets (new light type for majority of time, naval T-50 from time to time), 1/3 attack helicopters (Ka-52), 1/3 transport/anti-sub helicopters (Kamov Lamprey project should be completed by then but there is no shortage of other options here). Proportion of aircraft can be adjusted of course based on mission.

7) In total no more than 30 (or at most 40 aircraft but this is seriously pushing it) , both jets and helicopters.

Keep is small, efficient, multirole, adaptable and most of all, make sure it has as much commonality with Lider class as possible. Anything too different or bigger would be complete waste of time and money.

If they do want to build AC they need to make sure they get several of them not just one. Keeping it small will allow them to do it.

Good points Papa

Here are a few things I would like to add to this whole discussion:

1) Russia does not need such expeditionary air/marine forces like Uncle Sam has, since Russia won't go around the world to topple regimes or to bring democracy to third world countries, simple as that.

2) It is a well-known fact that Russia doesn't have money for them.

3) In case of war, the areas which Russia would need to defend the most are its littoral areas, that is why they have built/are building so much corvettes.

4) In my opinion, one "Shtorm"-class (Project 23000E) supercarrier should be built for both the Northern and the Pacific Fleets, plus two smaller carriers built on hulls of the Lider-class cruisers (I know that they are mostly mentioned as destroyers, but I prefer to refer to them as cruisers due to their vast size (a warship as long as 200 meters is far longer than any current destroyer or cruiser). So then, a carrier battlegroup of the Northern/Pacific Fleets would consist of:

- a Shtorm-class supercarrier with 70-80 fixed-wing planes on it

- two smaller, Lider-based carriers with 20-30 attack/ASW/SAR* helos on each of them

- some additional ships like destroyers and cruisers to protect the carriers

- some support ships to supply the battlegroup

5) The tasks of these battlegroups would be like the tasks of the Kirov-class heavy cruisers. They would take part on foerign deployments if they would be asked for it.

6) The only weapons carried by these carriers would be mostly SAM systems. Other ships of their battlegroup would take good care of anything threatening the carriers.

*SAR - Search And Rescue

[quote="Benya"]

PapaDragon wrote:

2) It is a well-known fact that Russia doesn't have money for them.

You don't know what you are talking about. Take a look at procurement numbers, costs and how much is spent per year. You will then know to eat your words because even $2B is very little. In actuality, Russia was paying a premium for the Mistrals as well.

miketheterrible wrote:

Benya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

2) It is a well-known fact that Russia doesn't have money for them.

You don't know what you are talking about.  Take a look at procurement numbers, costs and how much is spent per year.  You will then know to eat your words because even $2B is very little.  In actuality, Russia was paying a premium for the Mistrals as well.

Carrier would cost alot more than 2B, actually first one would probably cost as much as if you add another zero to that 2. Building cost might be 2 billion, even that is doubtful. Carrier costs alot more than that, on top of everything Russia would need billions to again develop technologies they lost though 2 decades of shipbuilding industry decay. Its like you say that Serbia would need 100 million to restart production of M-84A tank. In reality that number would be probably close to 2 billion, or more.

miketheterrible wrote:

Benya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

2) It is a well-known fact that Russia doesn't have money for them.

You don't know what you are talking about.  Take a look at procurement numbers, costs and how much is spent per year.  You will then know to eat your words because even $2B is very little.  In actuality, Russia was paying a premium for the Mistrals as well.

Hey Mike...

First, I never ever said nor ever tried to say that Russia cannot afford them. All I wanted to point out that they are not in the urgent need for them, so they won't allocate much money for them at the moment.

Got it?

I do not agree with the previous negative points.

There is a real stimation of the price of a unit of the Project 23000E Aircraft Carrier. In the following article, the numbers coming from the company that did the design (and likely build the aircraft carrier) are included:

http://tass.com/russia/797980

Nevskoye Design Bureau Head Sergei Vlasov told Tass news agency the promising aircraft carrier might cost from $1.8 billion to $5.63 billion at the current ruble/dollar exchange rate.

This is not out of what Russia can reach. Russia likely will have one of them.

Maybe some aditional costs in the refered to shipyards, but also Russia is looking at the export market, with India as potential buyer.

With the recuperation of the money, I tend to think that to have not the Mistrals is an advantage for Russia, in a time where the whole concept of helicopter is under review.

Egypt has now the Mistrals, is now the Navy of Egypt more powerful than the Russian Navy? No.

eehnie wrote:I do not agree with the previous negative points.

There is a real stimation of the price of a unit of the Project 23000E Aircraft Carrier. In the following article, the numbers coming from the company that did the design (and likely build the aircraft carrier) are included:

http://tass.com/russia/797980

Nevskoye Design Bureau Head Sergei Vlasov told Tass news agency the promising aircraft carrier might cost from $1.8 billion to $5.63 billion at the current ruble/dollar exchange rate.

This is not out of what Russia can reach. Russia likely will have one of them.

Maybe some aditional costs in the refered to shipyards, but also Russia is looking at the export market, with India as potential buyer.

With the recuperation of the money, I tend to think that to have not the Mistrals is an advantage for Russia, in a time where the whole concept of helicopter is under review.

Egypt has now the Mistrals, is now the Navy of Egypt more powerful than the Russian Navy? No.

First of all, there is no such thing as "design" for Project 23000 at this point. What you wanted to say "they are going to design the carrier", at this point it did not go much further from mockup. There were no major funds allocated for AC design and wont be probably till at least 2019. What was done regarding AC was just a concept, early design phases will start no earlier than 2018, words of Yuriy Borisov.

On top of everything Krylov State Research Center and Nevskoye Design Bureau to "build" a carrier? Good one.

Sergei Vlasov... guy that also said this: "Sergei Vlasov, general director of the Nevskoye design bureau, said the overall cost of the ship could range between 100 and 250 billion rubles ($2.8-7.1 billion)". I am sorry but noone, including Vlasov, knows how much such feat would cost, and its surely not 1,8 billion or 5 billion. Carrier is not something that comes cheap, one thing is building cost, totally different development cost, you need to spread development and infrastructure cost over the ships in the class. It especially wont come cheap for a country that built it last carrier over 30 years ago in shipyard that is today not even in that country.

"Egypt has now the Mistrals, is now the Navy of Egypt more powerful than the Russian Navy?"

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Benya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

2) It is a well-known fact that Russia doesn't have money for them.

You don't know what you are talking about.  Take a look at procurement numbers, costs and how much is spent per year.  You will then know to eat your words because even $2B is very little.  In actuality, Russia was paying a premium for the Mistrals as well.

Carrier would cost alot more than 2B, actually first one would probably cost as much as if you add another zero to that 2. Building cost might be 2 billion, even that is doubtful. Carrier costs alot more than that, on top of everything Russia would need billions to again develop technologies they lost though 2 decades of shipbuilding industry decay. Its like you say that Serbia would need 100 million to restart production of M-84A tank. In reality that number would be probably close to 2 billion, or more.

Of course. But the initial investment in re-tuning a facility and as well of newer technologies that could fit the carrier (although I imagine they could use current tech no problem and reduce cost) would have a return eventually in economic sense. Like Pogosayan once said "For every ruble put into the aerospace industry, 2 rubles are made". I am paraphrasing of course.

Serbia should restart its tank projects because it did sell decently and is a good contender. We in Canada lost the aerospace industry once we gave up the Avro Aero to the US. We figured that per year, we "lost" (Didn't lose anything because this is theoretical) $2B in potential profit/development from the aerospace industry. While Serbia couldn't build everything, they could build an effective tank for domestic and export (There would be a ton of poorer nations that would be interested in the M-84). Of course this is all a different topic.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:I do not agree with the previous negative points.

There is a real stimation of the price of a unit of the Project 23000E Aircraft Carrier. In the following article, the numbers coming from the company that did the design (and likely build the aircraft carrier) are included:

http://tass.com/russia/797980

Nevskoye Design Bureau Head Sergei Vlasov told Tass news agency the promising aircraft carrier might cost from $1.8 billion to $5.63 billion at the current ruble/dollar exchange rate.

This is not out of what Russia can reach. Russia likely will have one of them.

Maybe some aditional costs in the refered to shipyards, but also Russia is looking at the export market, with India as potential buyer.

With the recuperation of the money, I tend to think that to have not the Mistrals is an advantage for Russia, in a time where the whole concept of helicopter is under review.

Egypt has now the Mistrals, is now the Navy of Egypt more powerful than the Russian Navy? No.

First of all, there is no such thing as "design" for Project 23000 at this point. What you wanted to say "they are going to design the carrier", at this point it did not go much further from mockup. There were no major funds allocated for AC design and wont be probably till at least 2019. What was done regarding AC was just a concept, early design phases will start no earlier than 2018, words of Yuriy Borisov.

On top of everything Krylov State Research Center and Nevskoye Design Bureau to "build" a carrier? Good one.

Sergei Vlasov... guy that also said this: "Sergei Vlasov, general director of the Nevskoye design bureau, said the overall cost of the ship could range between 100 and 250 billion rubles ($2.8-7.1 billion)". I am sorry but noone, including Vlasov, knows how much such feat would cost, and its surely not 1,8 billion or 5 billion. Carrier is not something that comes cheap, one thing is building cost, totally different development cost, you need to spread development and infrastructure cost over the ships in the class. It especially wont come cheap for a country that built it last carrier over 30 years ago in shipyard that is today not even in that country.

"Egypt has now the Mistrals, is now the Navy of Egypt more powerful than the Russian Navy?"  

Habitually the designer of a project is in charge of the project management at the building stage, they are in charge of assure that what is being built meet the requirements stablished in the project, including the requirements in costs. This was the sense of my comment.

It is obvious for all in which stage is today the project of new aircraft carrier of Russia. And the project is today in a stage where the designer can do an estimation of the cost per unit. It is obvious, since you have the estimation of the cost published by the director of the designing bureau. If there someone able to do a budget, a stimate of the cost of the production of one unit is the designing bureau.

The lack of concision, of concretion of the project today is what opens the range between $1.8 billion until $5.63 billion. But at same time, this range is excluding bigger costs per unit. If they say $5.63 billion, is because they are ruling out bigger cost per unit. It is possible a deviation ($6 or even $8 billions?), but the cost will not reach the range that you are commenting. And it makes that even in a worst case, the new aircraft carrier is afordable for Russia.

All this is a reality that you can not deny with credibility, and less taking into account the economic skills that you proved to have before.

Then can we agree that the Egyptian Navy is not as powerful despite to have now the 2 Mistrals? Can we agree that 2 Mistral type ships make not a Navy a true naval power? Every country needs something else to be a naval power. Despite the contract for the 2 Mistrals, Russia never excluded the option of owning Aircraft Carriers. The whole project of the Russian Navy requires something els than 2 Mistrals, and likely will have it, in part with the money saved from the Mistral contracts.

I see wrong the previous analysis about the need of Aircraft Carriers for Russia.

Today Russia can do this operation in Syria, just because they have access to the terrytory from the own bases with long range aircrafts, or even they can use bases in other friend countries of Russia like Iran. Russia would be able to the same in almost all the countries of the continental platform of Asia, but out of this?

What about this kind of opearion in Yemen, or Lybia, or Algeria, or Angola?

For these potential cases do you want an Egyptian style Russian Navy without Aircraft Carriers?

The people that defends Mistral style ships over Aircraft Carriers for Russia, really think that is to have Mistral type ships what really qualifies a country to do this kind of operations? Have we to think then, that Egypt now is more qualified than Russia for this kind of opetarions in countries like Angola because they have the 2 Mistrals? It is as absurd as it sounds.

Or worst still, can the Russian Navy keep some signinficant position in the Arctic with an Egyptian style Russian Navy without some strong Aircraft Carrier?

The US would love an Egyptian style Russian Navy without strong aircraft carriers. Even having the aircrafts, it makes not sense for Russia to rule out to have some strong Aircraft Carrier. The difference between a Su-33 and a helicopter is enormous.

PapaDragon wrote:
No no absolutely no way. Shtorm is 100 000 ton monstrosity that Russian Navy has zero need for and it would take decades to build. And don't even get me started on the price of build and use.

Construction company threw that thing out there hoping to score some big cash but it was never realistic to begin with.

Makes sense. Then they should build one or two Lider-based aircraft carriers for each oceangoing fleet (2-4 in total). They would cost less, would take less time to build, and would provide just adequate capabilities for the Russian Navy.

Benya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
No no absolutely no way. Shtorm is 100 000 ton monstrosity that Russian Navy has zero need for and it would take decades to build. And don't even get me started on the price of build and use.

Construction company threw that thing out there hoping to score some big cash but it was never realistic to begin with.

Makes sense. Then they should build one or two Lider-based aircraft carriers for each oceangoing fleet (2-4 in total). They would cost less, would take less time to build, and would provide just adequate capabilities for the Russian Navy.

One of the most important variables that determine the size of the aircraft carrier is the kind of aircrafts that every one wants to fly on them. And the size of the aircrafts is not a random question or a caprice, is a consequence of the right compromise today between the current level of the technology, and the fire power needs.

Today, roughly, the Su-25 and the MiG-29 are around 20 tons, the Su-27, Su-33, Su-30 and Su-35 are between 30 and 35 tons, and finally, the Su-24, Su-34 and MiG-31 are aircrafts of around 45 tons. For the future generation of aircrafts, Russia designed the Su-PAK-FA of around 35 tons and the MiG-35 of around 30 tons.

Obviously, Russia will build an aircraft carrier which size allows a comfortable use of the aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons. Comfortable in the sense of security in the use of these aircrafts. Even, it was reported that the new aircraft carrier would allow to fly the Yak-44, a failed project of 40 tons that will not return. Surely the option to operate the Su-34 has been considered, but according to the reports seems ruled out because the reports do not mention the Su-34.

To allow to operate standard aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons requires a minimum size for the future Aircraft Carriers of Russia. The size of the future Russian aircraft carriers is only a consequence of the dimensions of the current and future Russian aircrafts.

There is a mistake where Russia will not fall in the future. In the future the Russian aircrafts will not be adapted to the Aircraft Carriers, it is far more expensive. In the future, the Aircraft Carriers will be adapted to the aircrafts that Russia wants to fly on them. And at same time, the Russian aircrafts will allow since the begin the use of the naval missiles (Air-Air, Air-Surface and Anti-Submarine). It is only a logical consequence of the standardization of the designs. To say it with an example. It is far more expensive the development and production of an specific aircraft than the difference between to build an aircraft carrier of 100000 tons instead of one of 75000 or 60000.

A small aircraft carrier would require the development of a new small aircraft of far less fire power. It would be more expensive and less effective.

If the Project 23000 has this size, there is a reason for it. Is not for India or for China, is for Russia primarily.

Think of a fixed wing aircraft as a large air base on land.

The Army uses all sorts of aircraft and air based assets to do its job and it also has the support of the Air Force.

The Navy needs the same air support simply because aircraft are useful.

The Navy does not need 100K ton super carriers to project their colonial power and intimidate countries but it does need air power that it can take with it whereever it goes around the world to support its operations.

Most of the time its goals will be achievable with cruise missile attacks and at other times it will need to operate in contested air space... meaning fighters.

As a military concept an Aircraft Carrier is only a sea airfield, with its oun military protection inside (air defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine,...).

Like on land airfields, is the size of the aircrafts that you want to land and take off what determines the size (lenght) of the airfield. On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.

With the improvements in the aircrafts in the reduction of the needed lenght for the runway, and with the shipbuilding improvements allowing the production of bigger ships, the limitiations that forced the use of specific aircrafts, are mostly a question of the past.

Today this still can limit the use of 45 ton aircrafts like the Su-34, but not the use of 30-35 ton aircrafts.

And this is what the US really hate to see. The US hate to see Russia building Aircraft Carriers that allow the use from sea platforms (aircraft carriers) of aircrafts like the Su-27, the Su-33, the Su-30, the Su-35, the Su-PAK-FA or the MiG-35.

Even the Project 23000 Aircraft Carriers would not allow to Russia to do an operation like this of Syria for the defense of the government of Angola, as example. Without the use of aircrafts over 35 tons and with a safe use of land platforms not always assured, to exclude also the use of the current Russian aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons makes not sense for Russia. Helicopters are significantly weaker and significantly more vulnerable aerial platforms.

Egypt has now the 2 Mistrals, and its Navy is not more powerful than the Navy of Russia.

eehnie wrote:
As a military concept an Aircraft Carrier is only a sea airfield, with its oun military protection inside (air defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine,...).

Like on land airfields, is the size of the aircrafts that you want to land and take off what determines the size (lenght) of the airfield. On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.

With the improvements in the aircrafts in the reduction of the needed lenght for the runway, and with the shipbuilding improvements allowing the production of bigger ships, the limitiations that forced the use of specific aircrafts, are mostly a question of the past.

Today this still can limit the use of 45 ton aircrafts like the Su-34, but not the use of 30-35 ton aircrafts.

And this is what the US really hate to see. The US hate to see Russia building Aircraft Carriers that allow the use from sea platforms (aircraft carriers) of aircrafts like the Su-27, the Su-33, the Su-30, the Su-35, the Su-PAK-FA or the MiG-35.

Even the Project 23000 Aircraft Carriers would not allow to Russia to do an operation like this of Syria for the defense of the government of Angola, as example. Without the use of aircrafts over 35 tons and with a safe use of land platforms not always assured, to exclude also the use of the current Russian aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons makes not sense for Russia. Helicopters are significantly weaker and significantly more vulnerable aerial platforms.

Egypt has now the 2 Mistrals, and its Navy is not more powerful than the Navy of Russia.

OK, first...

In the long run, aircraft like the Su-30/35 or the Su-34 equipped with anti-ship weaponry operating from a coastal airbase would be much more cost-efficient than a supercarrier.

Second...

A squadron of fighter-bomber aircraft coupled with an Il-78 Midas tanker could deploy – literally anywhere – much faster than an aircraft carrier sailing at 17-20 knots speed, so in this case, building supercarriers that would cost sh*tloads of money would make no sense.

Third...

I said yesterday that in case of a naval conflict in the vicinity of Russia, Russia's main objective would be to protect her own waters, which task could be done from mainland airbases with ease. Taking part in occasional expeditionary missions like Syria would require only a small naval air contingent, since most of the aircraft currently used there came to Latakia from mainland bases. The Kuznetsov air squadron's only task there (before they completed their deployment some months ago) was to somewhat supplement/reinforce the air contingent at the Hmeimim airbase.

Fourth...

As you can see, the only reason why Uncle Sam keeps 10 supercarriers plus 8 smaller carriers in his fleet is to support its constantly warfighting land/marine forces around the globe.

Air space is not free for Russian military forces. You see it in Europe. Russia has access to Syria, and basically to all the countries of the continental Asia platform as explained before.

But the problems begin when the Russian aircrafts need to fly over the arc formed by the US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, British bases in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman.

http://ian.macky.net/pat/map/nhem/nhemblu.gif



Following to the South? Somalia?, Kenya?... Do you see it easy?

Today is difficult for Russia only to go to Transdnistria.