Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

eehnie wrote:

More consequences of the introduction of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier allowing the use of standard Su-57:

- Cancellation of the production of Ford-Class aircraft carriers. The US would need to develop a superior aircraft carrier.
- Cancellation of the production of the F-35. The US would need to develop a superior fighter for its aircraft carriers.

I think the us would just ramp up carrier production and hope the Russians don't develop teleportation.

Ha ha ha! Like in that Jewish anecdote: "Chaim, get out of the car!" while the a car is only being imagined! If the RF won't be using its CVNs as the the USN does, why must US cancel its Fords & F-35s on just that account? U r carried away, buddy!
I failed to include a/c carriers in 4 more seas:

The aircraft involved in the campaign operated ..from the .. USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS America in the Adriatic Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force#Campaign

[It] connects to the Ionian Sea at the 72-kilometre (45 mi) wide Strait of Otranto. [and]..is 200 kilometres (120 mi) wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Sea#Geography

the Ionian Sea is 360 miles wide max.:
http://greekvoyager.com/en/knowing-greece/greece-geography/the-ionian-sea/

[Later,] The Royal Navy sent a substantial task force that included the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which operated Sea Harrier FA2 fighter jets.
The Italian Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, a frigate (Maestrale) and a submarine (Sauro-class). The United States Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Vella Gulf, and the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge. The French Navy provided the aircraft carrier Foch and escorts.
[The Kursk SSGN spent 6 months in] the Mediterranean ..during the summer of 1999 to monitor the United States Sixth Fleet responding to the Kosovo crisis. [It was covering the land Russian forces in the region.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_(K-141)#Deployments

The Red Sea at its widest point [is] 355 km (220.6 mi) wide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

The Arabian Sea's ..max. width ..is [~] 2,400 km (1,490 mi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea#Geography

Also,

At a distance of 1,600 mi (2,575 km), Africa and South America are relatively close trans-Atlantic neighbors. In fact, the distance from SW Senegal to NE Brazil is less than half the distance between London and New York. http://www.oafrica.com/broadband/brazil-and-africa/

Natal-Brasil → Freetown-Sierra-Leone 1,805.55 mi (2,905.76 km) https://www.distance.to/Natal-Brasil/Freetown-Sierra-Leone

The Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (Portuguese: Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo) is a group of 15 small islets and rocks in the central equatorial Atlantic Ocean. .. It lies approximately 510 nmi (940 km; 590 mi) from the nearest point of mainland South America (the northeastern Brazilian coastal town of Touros); 1,824 km (1,133 mi) from the west coast of Africa.
..Since 1998, the Brazilian Navy has maintained a permanently manned research facility on the islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter_and_Saint_Paul_Archipelago
Fernando de Noronha is an archipelago of 21 islands and islets in the Atlantic Ocean, 354 km (220 mi) offshore from the Brazilian coast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_de_Noronha

CB/SGs must pass between Brazil & W. Africa to get to/from the  S. Atlantic, Indian & Pac. Oceans as an alternative to Med. Sea, Suez Canal, & the NSR/NW Passage in the Arctic; the Panama Canal isn't wide enough for CVNs. The Pacific is also full of islands & choke points around its shores:  
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%20THE%20OCEANS/Images%20HFTO/Pacific%20OceanH.gif

https://www.bugbog.com/maps/australasia/pacific_map/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Pacific_map.gif

The Marquesas Islands group is ..lying about 1,371 km (852 mi) northeast of Tahiti and about 4,800 kilometres (3,000 mi) away from the west coast of Mexico,..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesas_Islands#Geography

Distance from Hawaii to Marquesas Islands is 2,336 mi
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Hawaii/Marquesas+Islands,+French+Polynesia/data=!4m7!4m6!1m2!1m1!1s0x7bffdb064f79e005:0x4b7782d274cc8628!1m2!1m1!1s0x7635e66a3a79a46d:0x16a7af39097eb98e?sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj5372IDZAhUFxmMKHafgA0gQ5y4IKDAA

The ..shortest distance between California and Hawaii is 3,976 km= 2,471 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-california-to-hawaii

..the ..distance between Kauai and Samalga Islands.. 2,175 miles.
http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/hawaii-is-closer-than-you-think/

The ..shortest distance from Hawaii to Federated States of Micronesia is 5182.93 km= 3220.52 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Hawaii/to/Federated+States+of+Micronesia

The.. shortest distance between Micronesia and Vanuatu is 2,644 km= 1,643 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-micronesia-to-vanuatu

Distance from Japan to Federated States of Micronesia 3,433 km
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Japan/Federated+States+of+Micronesia/@21.5698169,135.3725025,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x34674e0fd77f192f:0xf54275d47c665244!2m2!1d138.252924!2d36.204824!1m5!1m1!1s0x65d9b5c5ac58c813:0x547a8dcdfaa46525!2m2!1d150.550812!2d7.425554

Distance from Hawaii to Tahiti is 2,629 mi. https://www.distance.to/Tahiti/Hawaii

Distance between Chile and Easter Island is 3,689.06 km. This distance is equal to 2,292.27 miles, and 1,990.61 nautical miles.
https://www.distancefromto.net/between/Chile/Easter+Island

The ..shortest distance between Australia and New Zealand is 4,163 km= 2,587 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-australia-to-new-zealand

The ..shortest distance between Antarctica and NZ is 4,989 km= 3,100 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-new-zealand

The 800-kilometre (500 mi) wide passage between Cape Horn and Livingston Island is the shortest crossing from Antarctica to any other landmass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Passage

The shortest distance between Antarctica and South Africa is 7,362 km= 4,575 miles.
https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-south-africa

CB/SGs of any nation navigating there must go between those points & avoid civilian traffic, shallows, seamounts, wrecks, & possible minefields. Enemy subs & planes with torpedoes &/ AShMs can ambush them anywhere.
None of these distances can't be covered by Ash/BMs!
New missile variant ‘could keep US carriers out’
http://www.atimes.com/article/new-missile-variant-keep-us-carriers/

Arctic developments update: http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/29-01-2018/139846-arctic-0/

Isos wrote:

It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.

Obviously do not expect less than thousand of missles if you see one hundred vs a poor Syrian air base.

Also means sea denial to Russia. As example in the Arctic Ocean, some thing Russia does not want. And with very few US aircraft carriers in strategic positions would mean sea blockage for Russia.

There are strong reasons why Russia is including this way aircraft carriers in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

Peŕrier wrote:

I see you have an optimistic picture about how much work is required to  perform even a relatively simple ferry flight, and how much strain it puts upon crews, particularly on combat aircrafts' crews.

1) and pilots'fatigue by ferry flight you know it from experience or guessing?

2) so AC groups are moving with same speed as fighters moving to another airports?! so there is no time to rest? really?!

3) the whole AC group is not immune to attacks but much harder to kill than one ship.

4) It looks like you really dream to see II WW combats on Pacific. This era is gone. As simple as that. Why do you think Russia is developing airborne hypersonic cruisemissiles with range 1500km? isnt it ringing the bell with AC group ranges attack?

5) there are still bunch of Tu-22 with Kh-32 missiles to deal with AC groups.

6) MiG-31 can carry up to 9000kg of ordnance, 6 anti-ship Kh-31 inclusive. Why it cannot carry 3-4 hypersonic missiles if needed for this role?

Peŕrier wrote:
A single redeployment requires hours of planning and study before the flight, and should require familiarization flights past arrival to let crews know visually the whereabouts of their new operating base, plus briefings with local operations planners.

Anybody knowing a military pilot, either combat or logistic, could go ask him how much work he has to perform in one day, sometimes for a few days in a row, just to make an uneventful ferry flight.

That's why there is continuous training for in peace time. There is also very limited number of potential directions US forces can approach Russian mainland. If you dont believe check maps as simple as that. All directions are already planned bases either build or being built or will be built






BTW decision is taken according to Russian press to build helicopter carriers/LHDs first. No wonder because for Russians anti sub warfare is more important. Look at air wings of Soviet Russian ACs alwasy proportionally more helos then fighters. For a reason.


If Russia develops V gen light fighter with VSTOL then could fit there. Anyway I do not see need for Russia to follow China or Us examples. Too expensive and add little value on innuclear wars scenario. For anything less than Midway battles small LHD/VSTOL carrier is more than enough.

Isos wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.

Obviously do not expect less than thousand of missles if you see one hundred vs a poor Syrian air base.

Also means sea denial to Russia. As example in the Arctic Ocean, some thing Russia does not want. And with very few US aircraft carriers in strategic positions would mean sea blockage for Russia.

There are strong reasons why Russia is including this way aircraft carriers  in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

How do you fire thousands of missiles ? If they have onlyy cruise missiles in their VLS, the destruction of the carrier and its escort group will be easier.

What sea blockage ? In the north they will be stuck in the ice quickly and will be destroyed by russian aviation. In the black sea Turkey won't follow USA, in the Pacific you block Chinese sea roads for russian gaz and oïl that they desperately need so they will also Attack US ships and in the Baltics most of the countries their will stay neutral and won't touch Russia.

Russian bases that host Russian bombers are not reachable by cruise missiles nor US carrier aviation and even if they reach they will be easily destroyed.


Carriers are good for naval warefare in the middle of ocean. Near the cost of a modern country with good aviation like Russia or china they are dead meat. Get over it.

Nothing of this makes sense...

Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

If Russia would have not strong naval armament, that allows an effective support from land, a naval block of Russia would be relatively easy because most the Russian coast is in front of the US and Canada, and there are only a few exits.

Isos wrote:

How do you fire thousands of missiles ? If they have onlyy cruise missiles in their VLS, the destruction of the carrier and its escort group will be easier.

What sea blockage ? In the north they will be stuck in the ice quickly and will be destroyed by russian aviation. In the black sea Turkey won't follow USA, in the Pacific you block Chinese sea roads for russian gaz and oïl that they desperately need so they will also Attack US ships and in the Baltics most of the countries their will stay neutral and won't touch Russia.

Russian bases that host Russian bombers are not reachable by cruise missiles nor US carrier aviation and even if they reach they will be easily destroyed.


Carriers are good for naval warefare in the middle of ocean. Near the cost of a modern country with good aviation like Russia or china they are dead meat. Get over it.

Well, US Navy right now has around two Ticonderoga cruisers and six Arleigh Burke destroyer operative for every carrier.

A typical carrier task group woul have at least one Ticonderoga and two or three Arleigh Burke, and that's the usual carrier's escort group during easy missions like against Irak and the likes.

A Ticonderoga has 122 VLS, an Arleigh Burke around 90, so even a minimalist escort group of a single aircraft carrier has around 300 VLS.

Even loading only half of that with cruise missiles, it would make up for over 150 cruise missiles, to add to those air launched employed by embarked aircrafts. Let's say a single carrier group could at the very least launch over 200 cruse missiles in a really short time if required, but in some serious deploymet, let's say against a peer opponent, it would be reasonable to have a larger escort group, so at least three or four Arleigh Burke if not even a second Ticonderoga.

That would mean a single carrier strike group could launch easily close or around to 400 cruise missiles almost in a single salvo.

And no, they won't sail in the Kara sea, nor they would need. From russian northern shores there are two only routes: eastward and westward.

That means the only waters that means are the Barents sea and east Siberia sea, than by the point of interest of sea communications, eastern Russia and Western Russia would be cut off with each other.

So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

Isos wrote:

Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

That's what I'm trying to tell you. This can't happen because if the carrier is out of range of russian land based fighter then the carrier can't attack russia because its fighters have smaller legs than Sukhois so there is no war. And the carrier will still be in range of Tu-22/95/160, maybe even Su-34 could reach it with Il-78 support.

Why can't you understand that ?

The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

What did Iraq have to Attack US with ? Nothing. Same for all countries attacked by USA. The only operation they tried was and Attack with 2 Mirages F-1 covered by some 2 Mig-29 I think. Against 2500 fighter and almost 100 ships around you, you can't do a lot with 2 Mirage and 2 mig.

Where were the ships that fired those missiles ? 2500 km from Iraq or just near it ?

The problem is that sending an handful of bombers against a carrier group, better to say looking for a carrier group sailing some hundreds km from the shores is an almost suicidal mission.

Soviet Union had many dozens of Tu-142, whose missions comprised amongst other tasks, to search and track NATO's surface task groups.

At the moment those precious aircraft are just a pair of dozens, so there is a proportionally reduced capacity to scan vast sea areas, and their most relevant mission is ASW, to help secure russian SSBNs operating areas.

And anyway, the carrier task group fighter aircraft are not short legged at all, and CAP's aircrafts flying with only AA armaments will have far larger operating radius than comparable aircrafts loaded with heavy and bulky AShM.

So Su-34s would have zero range advantage against a carrier's CAP, barring the problem to find the carrier group before the opposite happens.

Don't do dick measuring contests, are meaningless, and anyway you will loose them always and ever.

You are comparing the task to strike fixed targets with the task of stopping a mobile, well armed and equipped force.

You are measuring all the available assets against a subset of enemy's assets. Just to say, against those two Yasen it could be accounted for even a single Ohio SSGN, armed with over 100 cruise missiles and an handful of SSN chasing right those Yasen and Kalina.

There would not never be 50 Su-34, even half of that number would not be available to chase a single carrier group because in case of confrontation there would be a very long front starting from Saint Petersburg down to Crimea to be accounted for it the west, and another equally critical running from the Bering straits to Vladivostock, plus there could be the need for some of them south toward the Caucasus.

And carrier groups to care for would be more than one.

By the way, 150 tubes means a bit more than 150 missiles, because ESSMs come quad-packed in a VLS' tube: that means that behind let's say 100 SM-2 missiles would come 200 ESSM, plus obviously the carrier's own missiles, plus those launched from CAP aircraft.

Plus the fact that those estimate is far short from what an escort group could field, given the fact that every single Arleigh Burke would add another 90 VLS.

So, the point is: which way a defense could be credible against an opponent with those characteristics?

The answer is a smart, and flexible defense, and a flexible defense requires mobile forces. Subs are an excellent tool, but they alone just are not enough.

And land based combat aircrafts are not a flexible tool.

A mobile naval task group with an organic air combat wing, along with subs, form together a flexible tool.

Land based defenses are just strongholds, useful to boost mobile forces effectiveness, but are never an answer to a mobile threat.

Please, at least try to write substantives correctly: it's Yasen, with just a single S letter.

Maybe, but I do not see any need to use them.

Isos wrote:

Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

That's what I'm trying to tell you. This can't happen because if the carrier is out of range of russian land based fighter then the carrier can't attack russia because its fighters have smaller legs than Sukhois so there is no war. And the carrier will still be in range of Tu-22/95/160, maybe even Su-34 could reach it with Il-78 support.

Why can't you understand that ?

The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

What did Iraq have to Attack US with ? Nothing. Same for all countries attacked by USA. The only operation they tried was and Attack with 2 Mirages F-1 covered by some 2 Mig-29 I think. Against 2500 fighter and almost 100 ships around you, you can't do a lot with 2 Mirage and 2 mig.

Where were the ships that fired those missiles ? 2500 km from Iraq or just near it ?

About the first part. It was explained in the initial comment. The Russian Tu-22 and the Su-34(+Il-78) only can attack with Kh-55/101/102 because can not go inside the range of the US figherts without the protection of the land based Russian fighters or air defense because would be destroyed. only would be able with the protection of the fighters and the air defense of a Project 23000 aircraft carrier and its escort.

About the second part, you was asking how would be able the US of firing thousands of missiles. Now you know they did it before.

Peŕrier wrote:

So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

Interesting, the carriers / US ships are ice classified ?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Many guys expecting asymmetric standing between US/russia in the event of war.

Say the war happens during the summer time ,and the ice cap is lean, and there is no floating ice that can scrap the carriers .

See? many expectations .

But if any conflict happens during winter , then what? the tomahawk missiles will target the ice?and what they will do the submarines ,that using the ice cap as cover to launch onyx missiles against the carrier group?

Amusing the talk about hundreds of Tomahawks... subsonic low flying slow easy targets that just rely on numbers for effectiveness... the irony is that the best defence against such an attack is a layered in depth air defence starting with long range airborne early warning and fighter interceptors armed with lots of AAMs, but also passing target information to surface forces who can also engage targets at extended ranges.

You talk about US carrier groups like they are invincible so large Russian carriers are pointless, but the fact is that large carriers make a surface group more capable and powerful, not less so.

Britain didn't become a world power and then build a powerful navy.... the US didn't become a world power and then build a powerful navy... to be a proper global power you need a powerful navy first...

Whether they use that power to invade poor countries and steal their resources, and bully other countries to not object to their behaviour, or just, as I suggest use it to guarantee its own ability to trade with whomever it wants without interference and sanctions from the west comes down to what the Russian people want, but the opportunity for free trade is surely a basic need for any country with no ideology to push or impose on others.

BTW I have seen no evidence to suggest the US Navy could defend against a single Onyx missile let alone a full scale attack of dozens.

And Zircon will likely be ready well before any full sized carriers are even back in service let alone built from scratch...

Sats & OHRs, not to mention subs on patrol in the N. Atlantic/Arctic will detect CB/SGs & their airborne birds long before they come within their CM range. The S-400/500s will meet them:
https://ria.ru/radio_brief/20180119/1512937172.html?utm_source=infox.sg
Their MiG-31s supported by A-50/100s can engage CMs too:

According to one count, there are 252 MiG-31s in the inventory of the Russian Air Force. Moscow began modernizing its Foxhound fleet to the MiG-31BM and BSM variant starting in 2010, and plans to have 100 upgraded by 2020. The BM includes modernized cockpit displays, a hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS), and a new Zaslon-M radar with maximum detection range increased to 200 miles. It also is upgraded to employ the latest generation of long-range air-to-air missiles, including the R-33S, the R-77—the Russian equivalent to the U.S. AIM-120—and the super-long range R-37—intended to be a tanker- and AWACs-killer. The new Foxhounds are also capable of mounting up to 18 thousand pounds of air-to-ground smart bombs and anti-radar missiles in case Moscow needs some additional strike planes. Finally, the BMs have new data-links integrating the MiG-31’s sensors with ground-based radars and friendly fighter planes, allowing the Foxhound to coordinate the entire air defense system. A flight of four of the upgraded Foxhounds could patrol a swath of airspace over 400 miles across.
At 35 years old, the MiG-31 is expected to serve on until 2030.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-mig-31-fighter-mach-3-monster-even-35-years-old-18376?page=show
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Electronics_suite

The press service of Russian Pacific Fleet reported that a pair of MiG-31s, stationed in Kamchatka, successfully locked onto and destroyed a simulated cruise missile target launched from a ship in the Sea of Okhotsk at an altitude of over 12,000 meters at over three times the speed of sound. The target was destroyed using an air-to-air missile, which targeted the enemy missile on a collision course. ..
The plane's radar systems allow it to find even low-visibility cruise missile targets. In the broad, relatively lightly defended areas of Russia's air borders, the MiG-31 serves as the main means of defense against air attack.
https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/7/18/9222/?h
The armament suite includes up to 10 R-37M or RVV-BD missiles with an operational range of 320km (198mi). The range is 189km (117.5 mi) for stealth targets. The missile is designed to shoot down AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft whilst keeping the launch platform out of range of any fighters that might be protecting the target. It can attack targets ranging in altitude between 15–25,000 meters (5 – 82,000 feet). ..
The aircraft broke a record for the longest non-stop flight, spending seven hours and four minutes in the air while covering the distance of 8,000km (4,970mi) from Siberia's Krasnoyarsk region to the Astrakhan region in southern Russia with three mid-air refueling procedures performed en route.
The super-fast interceptor can traverse vast distances to knock out encroaching bombers and missiles before they approach close enough to strike. With so many features to make it stand out among other fighters, the MiG-31BM is able to carry out long-range interception, precision strike and defense suppression missions effectively to put it on the list of ten top aircraft in the world. In the coming years, the MiG-31BM will form the backbone of Russia’s air defenses.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/16/unique-capabilities-mig-31bm-fighter-strike-imagination.html

The Russian Navy’s Su-30SM are being equipped with an anti-ship variant of the Mach 3.5-capable Kh-31 that has a range of roughly 120 miles. The Kremlin-owned Izvestia news outlet brags the even a single such weapon would be able to destroy a U.S. Navy ship. “Even one missile is guaranteed to send a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser—currently in service with the U.S. Navy—to the to the bottom,” Izvestia columnist Alex Ramm writes. ..
U.S. Navy officials have expressed concerns about the capabilities of the latest Russian and Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles—particularly the fearsome P-800 Oniks. The Mach 2.8 capable Oniks—and its Russian-Indian cousin the Brahmos—fly a particular profile that makes it difficult to intercept. However, the Navy has not been eager to share any details about exactly why that is the case for obvious reasons.
In any case, the addition of the Su-30SM and the Kh-31 to the Baltic Sea region means that that region—which was already very dangerous for allied naval forces—will become an even more challenging problem. https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/russias-fearsome-supersonic-kh-31-cruise-missile-vs-us-navy-aegis-missile-defense-system/

Su-30SM & Su-34s can reinforce MiG-31s in the North.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

Even if any CMs r missed, most of their targets r deep inland & can be engaged by more MiG-31s:


Range of AW fighters isn't going to make any difference- their CMs will be engaged regardless of their launch points. Even at max. ranges, as noted before, their SSGNs, armed icebreakers, land based Tu bombers, & AshMs can interdict CB/SGs from at least 500 km stand off range. The naval blockade of W. & E. Russian Arctic isn't going to be sustainable. The GIUK gap is farther away, but:

The Soviets planned to use the GIUK gap to intercept any NATO ships, especially aircraft carriers, heading towards the Soviet Union. Ships and submarines as well as Tupolev Tu-142 maritime-surveillance aircraft aimed to track any threatening ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap#Cold_War

Russia used Adm K. returning from the Med. Sea to train for doing the same. The US could try to close the Bering Strait, but Russia can do the same to Western ships there!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#/media/File:North_pole_map.jpeg

They can also close the NSR & their airspace to all Western shippers & airlines, bankrupting many of them; by claiming the N. Pole, the whole Central Arctic around it could be closed to Western shipping:

“As Reuters reported last year, Moscow has plowed more resources into its northern defense than at any point since the Berlin Wall fell, in some cases giving it even greater capability and reach in the region than it enjoyed before 1989. That includes creating or reopening 6 military outposts and building 3 new, large nuclear icebreakers to add to its already 40-strong fleet…While US and other NATO subs might potentially penetrate such waters undetected, Moscow’s defenses would make it all but impossible for any surface shipping to survive near Russian territory in any war.
“The first new US icebreaker is unlikely to enter service before 2023, the US Coast Guard says — but that will be contingent on additional funding this year that is not yet guaranteed. The US military’s only operational heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, is seen as incapable of remaining in service more than another 5 years…China’s first indigenously-built icebreaker, Snow Dragon 2, launched in December and will operate alongside its namesake, built by Ukraine for Beijing and put in service in 1994. Neither of the Snow Dragons is believed to be armed but, given the change in direction of other Arctic-operating navies, that could easily change.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/02/polar-silk-road-china-plans-deeper-collaboration-russia-arctic-will-affect-future-conflict-arctic-resources/

Welcome to the small World!
OTH, NATO has an advantage in the S. Atlantic, Antarctic & Indian Oceans with many islands there controlled by the UK, NZ & France:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean#South_Atlantic_Ocean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Subantarctic_Islands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Indian_Ocean#Western_Indian_Ocean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Indian_Ocean#South_Indian_Sea

Also to note:  
In the W. Med. Sea,

the Alboran Island is a small islet in the Alboran Sea [its only ~171.57 km, 106.61 miles across]..about 50 km (31 mi) north of the Moroccan coast and 90 kilometres (56 miles) south of the Spanish province of Almería. It is now home to a small Spanish Naval garrison and an automated lighthouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alboran_Island
https://www.distancefromto.net/
Distance from Antarctica to Falkland Islands is 4,123 kilometers. This air travel distance is equal to 2,562 miles.
https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-falkland-islands
Distance from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to South Africa is 5,360 kilometers. This air travel distance is equal to 3,331 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-south-georgia-and-the-south-sandwich-islands-to-south-africa

The island group is about 955 nmi (1,769 km; 1,099 mi) south-east of Port Elizabeth in mainland South Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward_Islands#Geography_and_geology
Bouvet Island.. lies ..approximately 2,600 kilometres (1,600 mi) south-southwest of the coast of South Africa and approximately 1,700 kilometres (1,100 mi) north of the Princess Astrid Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvet_Island

Those islands can be used to monitor naval activity &/ launch attacks on ships. Russian CBGs will have no chance so far from their bases & land-based air cover; even in the Arctic & N. Atlantic/Pacific their CVNs will be attacked by the land based MPA, B-1B/52s & F-15s, F-35s, Rafales, Typhoons, besides USN F-18s & SSN/Ks. Also, 1 Ohio SSGN has 154 LACMs that could be exchanged for LRASMs based on them; the 2 in the Atlantic will pack 308 of those- enough to devastate & mission kill the whole CBG- & they can be launched from at least 200nm away: https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/us-navy-to-re-fit-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-to-attack-ships/

By the same token, 2 Oscars x 72 = 144 AShMs:

Kalibr-class cruise missiles, ..can ..hit sea targets up to 350 kilometers [217.48mi., 188.98 nmi.] away
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703071051346598-russia-subs-missiles/

I heard that ~30 Tu-22Ms armed with ~90 AShMs total (54 less!) were needed to mission kill a CBG.
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sov-ASuW.html

1 USN submariner told me in 1993 that "a carrier is just a big target". In fact, all 3 of these r good targets for subs:


That's also why China won't use her CV/Ns against USN CSGs either, even in ice-free W. Pac.! The Zircons & other LRAS/BMs can do it for le$$! Btw, the island hopping in the Pacific War moved US land air bases for the B-29s ever closer to Japan- but the CVs were used against the IJN & IJA around & on them, not against the mainland Japan! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging_(strategy)
So, stationary bases r not useless- otherwise China wouldn't building islands with bases on them in the SC Sea now, turning it into a bastion for its SSBNs!
http://www.jpolrisk.com/effect-of-south-china-sea-air-strips-on-the-range-of-chinese-surface-to-air-missiles-and-the-j-10-fighter-asean-countries-threatened-by-expanding-chinese-air-power/
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/161614/us-map-shows-ph-chinas-crosshairs
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1edf2dc62f2f729c1182c16fa4e52a3b
https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-nuclear-submarine-force/

Last, but not least, an EMP burst from a Trident SLBM or a B-2/52 will fry the CBG & its AW electronics- the ships crews will have to surrender, or limp back home if they can & r allowed to.

A case in point:

On January 24, during the discussion of the American response in the White House, National Security Adviser Walter Rostow expressed the idea of ​​ordering the ships of South Korea to seize a Soviet ship following the aircraft carrier Enterprise for the sake of symmetry. Such a "symmetric" response could have serious consequences, because, according to the American data, the Soviet nuclear submarine of the project 627A was following the Enterprise carrier during its transition to the Korean coast, and it is not known how its commander would react.
FLEET GOES TO KOREAN SHORES
Soon, by order of the president, 32 American surface ships were concentrated off the coast of Korea, including the nuclear attack aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), the strike aircraft carriers Ranger (CV-61), Ticonderoga (CV-14), Coral Sea (CV-43), anti-submarine aircraft carriers Yorktown (CVS-10) and Kirsarge (CVS-33), missile cruisers Chicago (CG-11) and Providence (CLG-6), lightweight the cruiser Canberra (CA-70), the nuclear missile cruiser Thomas Trakstan and others. In addition to surface ships, by February 1, the Seventh Fleet of the US Navy was ordered to deploy up to nine diesel and nuclear torpedo submarines off the coast of Korea.
In such a situation, the USSR could not remain an outside observer. Firstly, from the area of ​​maneuvering of the American squadron to Vladivostok about 100 km, and secondly, the USSR and the DPRK concluded an agreement on mutual cooperation and military assistance.
The Pacific fleet immediately tried to observe the actions of the Americans. At the time of the capture of the Pueblo, the Soviet hydrographic vessel Hydrolog and the Project 50 patrol ship were on patrol in the Tsushima Strait. They discovered the American carrier strike group (AOG), led by the nuclear attack aircraft carrier Enterprise, when it entered the Sea of ​​Japan [The sea .. has a maximum width of about 1,070 km (660 mi). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan#Geography_and_geology] on January 24. On January 25, US President Johnson announced the mobilization of 14.6 thousand reservists. American media demanded to strike at Wonsan naval base and force to release Pueblo. Admiral Grant Sharp proposed to send the destroyer "Hickey" directly to the harbor under the cover of aircraft from the carrier Enterprise, and taking him to the tugboat Pueblo, take him away. Several other options were also considered for the release of the reconnaissance vessel. However, they all had little chance of success, since there were seven 183P missile boats and several patrol boats, as well as coastal batteries, in Wonsan. So, the US Department of Defense's plan was more realistic when it proposed bombing the Pueblo, without stopping before the death of the crew.
On our side, an operational squadron under the command of Rear Admiral Nikolai Ivanovich Khovrin, consisting of missile cruisers of Project 58 Varyag and Admiral Fokin, large missile ships Uporny (Project 57 bis) and The Expendables (Project 56M ), destroyers of Project 56 "Calling" and "Vesky". The detachment was tasked with patrolling the region in readiness to protect the state interests of the USSR from provocative actions. Upon arrival, N.I. Khovrin conveyed the report: "I arrived at the place, maneuvering, the" Vegetables "fly over me intensively at low altitude, almost clinging to the masts."
The commander gave the order - to open fire in response to a clear attack on our ships. In addition, the commander of the fleet aviation Alexander Nikolaevich Tomashevsky was ordered to fly a Tu-16 rocket carrier regiment over the aircraft carriers with low-altitude missile-launched KS-10 rockets to allow Americans to see anti-ship missiles with homing heads. Tomashevsky picked up 20 missile carriers and himself led the formation.
Twenty-seven Soviet submarines were also deployed in the area of ​​operation of the US carrier-strike groups.
DISCHARGE
Since the aircraft carriers flew by our rocket carriers, two of them began to retreat to the Sasebo area (Japan). The reconnaissance of the Enterprise and the Ranger by escorting and issuing target designation for the launch of a missile strike was carried out by the destroyers "Calling" and "Vesky". In addition, their departure was photographed by the Tu-95RC. The pair of the latter were instructed to photograph the aircraft carrier "Ranger". The pilots found him in the East China Sea and photographed the ship, so suddenly, that the aircraft carrier did not even have time to pick up his fighters.
On December 23, 1968, when the US government officially apologized and acknowledged the fact that the ship was stationed in the territorial waters of North Korea, all 82 crew members and the body of the deceased sailor were sent to the United States. "Pueblo" remained in jail in Wonsan harbor, and in 1995 was taken to Pyongyang, where it was used as a museum. [No attempt was made to recover it during transit around S. Korea.]
I think that an episode of half a century ago should be remembered by American admirals, who direct aircraft carrier units to the shores of Korea.
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-02-02/9_982_pueblo.html?print=Y

Even back then it wasn't hard to locate a CBG in a semi-closed sea!
https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/seajapan.gif

Other seas & oceans have many inlets, straits, peninsulas, islands, reefs, & shallows that can be used to determine location & track CBGs by various means. A good example:

The Azores ..is an archipelago composed of nine volcanic islands in the North Atlantic Ocean about 1,360 km (850 mi) west of continental Portugal, ..about 1,507 km (936 mi) northwest of Morocco, and about 1,925 km (1,196 mi) southeast of Newfoundland, Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores
In 1943, during World War II, the Portuguese ruler António de Oliveira Salazar leased air and naval bases in the Azores to the British Empire.[15] The occupation of these facilities in October 1943 was codenamed Operation Alacrity by the British.
This was a key turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic, enabling the Royal Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Navy to provide aerial coverage in the Mid-Atlantic gap. This helped them to protect convoys and to hunt hostile Kriegsmarine U-boats. ..
In 1945, a new base was constructed on the island of Terceira, and it is named Lajes Field. ..Lajes Field continues to support the American and Portuguese Armed Forces. During the Cold War, U.S. Navy P-3 Orion antisubmarine warfare squadrons patrolled the North Atlantic Ocean for Soviet Navy submarines and surface warships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores#20th_century

The Kurils are strategically important for Russia. It has a number of military bases on the islands, which also guarantee secure access to the Pacific Ocean through the the Sea of Okhotsk. .."There are several problems, such as the Russian military bases on the islands or the possible placement of American military bases if Japan gets any of the islands which will definitely not be accepted by Russia,".. .
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/12/kurils-difficult-life-disputed-islands-161215105806870.html

https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2376266.html

http://politicalhotwire.com/current-events/142606-russia-militarise-kuril-islands-against-japan.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

Together with Kamchatka peninsula & Sakhalin, they r in fact unsinkable a/c carriers!