Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

China would have to give a green light for Russia to take NZ, & Australia will need to be watched/attacked too to prevent her interference. Thus, MiGs & SUs will be using SC Sea/Indonesian bases & refueled in the air. It's the small world! But frankly SSN/SSGNs + Tu-95s/160s can take out all NZ power stations, bases, etc. with LACMs even w/o Kinzhals! The same goes for Falklands & S. Georgia. They'll be happy to help Argentina to take them if only to make London miserable! Afterwards, getting access to bases on them won't hart either!

afte so many months of conflict in this discussion the eternal questions have not been answered yet:

1. Does Russia needs aircraft carriers?
2. Has Russia the ability to construct aircraft carriers?

George1 wrote:afte so many months of conflict in this discussion the eternal questions have not been answered yet:

1. Does Russia needs aircraft carriers?
2. Has Russia the ability to construct aircraft carriers?

There is a need, but not so urgent.

The shipbuilding ability is doubtful now, but the yards are in reconstruction as to make that possible very soon.

George1 wrote:afte so many months of conflict in this discussion the eternal questions have not been answered yet:

1. Does Russia needs aircraft carriers?
2. Has Russia the ability to construct aircraft carriers?

Last time I checked those types of mass-quote spam-posts were cause for getting banned.

Mods were very strict about that rule. Waiting for to be applied here.

One has to be either naive or ignorant not to acknowledge Russian need for CVN. The only reason for their submarine focus is lack of funds and ability to make carriers as Khruscev said in 60s.

Without CVN you don't have ability to influence distant regions. It's not about being world cop, it's called interest protecting and shifting monopolar to multipolar world. That's Russia and it's certainly not a defensive UN peacemaker afraid to step in Ukraine or Syria to protect civilians.

verkhoturye51 wrote:One has to be either naive or ignorant not to acknowledge Russian need for CVN. The only reason for their submarine focus is lack of funds and ability to make carriers as Khruscev said in 60s.

Without CVN you don't have ability to influence distant regions. It's not about being world cop, it's called interest protecting and shifting monopolar to multipolar world. That's Russia and it's certainly not a defensive UN peacemaker afraid to step in Ukraine or Syria to protect civilians.

Yes, yes, Russian interests in Patagonia and Papua New Guinea must be protected at all (financial) costs...

Believe it or not, Africa is the continent of the future, full of resources like oil and food, over which wars will be faught in the future.

If Vietnam wouldn't be traditional Soviet navy refueling base, who knows how many weapons would Russia sell down there and how aligned with US would the country be.

Venezuela has the largest prooven oil resources in the world and hence power to destabilize the price if it increases the oil output..Russians can't let CIA do coup d'etat.

I don't know why some companies bother investing in marketing and cybersecurity indeed, they could just decrease the price and hope to sell more...connections and friends don't matter, right.

PapaDragon wrote:Yes, yes, Russian interests in Patagonia and Papua New Guinea must be protected at all (financial) costs...  

New Zealand, dont forget about New Zealand - we need to save GarryB

verkhoturye51 wrote:Believe it or not, Africa is the continent of the future, full of resources like oil and food, over which wars will be faught in the future.

Venezuela has the largest prooven oil resources in the world and hence power to destabilize the price if it increases the oil output..Russians can't let CIA do coup d'etat.

still you need to live to this moment. If you overspend on military people start going on streets in Russia.

Define overspending...12 Liders = another Arab Spring can't happen in north Africa if Russia doesn't bless it = 2nd Libyan civil war is finished tommorow = investment business for Russians the day after tommorow

And CNN can't BS Americans how rusty and bankrupt Russian army is and their interests in Ukraine don't have to be respected and Donald will be elected again instead of Killary.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Define overspending...12 Liders = another Arab Spring can't happen in north Africa if Russia doesn't bless it = 2nd Libyan civil war is finished tommorow = investment business for Russians the day after tommorow
...........

About Arabs and Russians:

...and the USSR quickly discovered that its Arab ‘allies’ in whom it had invested so much were both ungrateful and treacherous, so that by 1980 the USSR’s entire position in the Middle East had completely collapsed.

The final straw came after the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, when volunteers from across the Arab world rushed to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, in a way that they had never shown the slightest indication of wanting to do against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

http://theduran.com/israels-netanyahu-to-be-guest-of-honour-at-russias-9th-may-victory-day-celebration/

Some things are waste of money on several levels, you just added another one to this.

PapaDragon wrote:the USSR’s entire position in the Middle East had completely collapsed.

SU was stagnant in 80s, but US is today. Their position in ME has completely collapsed, too. The days of US dominance are over. And Russians are filling the empty place with speed of light. Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Libya, N. Sudan, Israel...relationship with Qatar and Saudis had improved, too.

Russia doesn´t meddle in other countries affairs. It´s the Job of Venezuelans to stop the CIA scum. Same for Arabs. And if they ask for help, there would be no need for carriers. Carriers are only useful for WWII style operations in open water (carrier against carrier) or surpressing third world countries. If Russia decides to build a carrier class (and i have no doubt they will), than it will mainly be for operations against other carriers in a big war.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Define overspending...12 Liders = another Arab Spring can't happen in north Africa if Russia doesn't bless it = 2nd Libyan civil war is finished tommorow = investment business for Russians the day after tommorow

There is not tomorrow if Russia wont invest into hi-tech, secure own demographics and well being. Lider destroyers cannot prevent war on desert BTW. Unless you share Ms. Psaki view abut US 6th fleet on shores of Belorussia

I doubt Russia will build 12 Liders, Maybe eight but 12 ehhhhh.

Hole wrote:Russia doesn´t meddle in other countries affairs. It´s the Job of Venezuelans to stop the CIA scum. Same for Arabs. And if they ask for help, there would be no need for carriers. Carriers are only useful for WWII style operations in open water (carrier against carrier) or surpressing third world countries. If Russia decides to build a carrier class (and i have no doubt they will), than it will mainly be for operations against other carriers in a big war.

Like they didn't meddle in Ukraine in 2014, Syria in 2015 and Libya in 2017?

Venezuelan army has no chance against US on their own. That's why befriended Russians and made a thing called alliance, pretty popular thing since WWII, perhaps you've heard of it. The only nation still living in isolation has started to give up so you should modernise your foreign policy ideals.

Russians don't have to build carrier to fight other carriers, supersonics is much cheaper way. Carriers make a blue water navy that can access any part of the planet and is a constant threat to US dominance.

verkhoturye51 wrote:..... a thing called alliance, pretty popular thing since WWII, perhaps you've heard of it. ......

Russians definitely know about that thing called alliance. They also know how their allies have a habbit of routinely and repeatedly fucking them over.

verkhoturye51 wrote:.....Russians don't have to build carrier to fight other carriers, supersonics is much cheaper way. Carriers make a blue water navy that can access any part of the planet and is a constant threat to US dominance.

Why should they threaten US dominance? There is no money in that.

They have their own corner of the planet to worry about, rest of it is someone else's problem.

Last time I checked those types of mass-quote spam-posts were cause for getting banned.

Does not apply in this case.

It would apply if someone reposted an entire conversation from a thread to reply to only one part of the reposted conversation.

But posting examples... even if annoying is relevant.

Without CVN you don't have ability to influence distant regions. It's not about being world cop, it's called interest protecting and shifting monopolar to multipolar world. That's Russia and it's certainly not a defensive UN peacemaker afraid to step in Ukraine or Syria to protect civilians.

More importantly operating ships without a carrier is like operating ground troops without taking the air force with you.

The Russian Army took Su-24s and Su-25s and Su-30s and Su-34s and Su-35s and even PAK FA and MiG-29s and more importantly A-50Us and Tu-214s and Il-20s to Syria... why would the Russian Navy not take some fighter aircraft and AWACS platforms with them too?

Believe it or not, Africa is the continent of the future, full of resources like oil and food, over which wars will be faught in the future.

They need investment and trade to develop and grow before the imperial west screws them and chews them up and spits them out.

A chance for Russia to grow and develop independent of the west and its strings and claws.

New Zealand, dont forget about New Zealand - we need to save GarryB

Bet your ass don't forget about me... I expect to be forward supported... a complete Ratnik II set to start with... as you haven't decided on the standard rifle then you need to give me one of each... AK-12, AK-15, etc etc...

still you need to live to this moment. If you overspend on military people start going on streets in Russia.

Exactly right... finalising the design in perhaps 2020, and laying it down 2022-2023 and having it put in the water in 2028... fully operational perhaps 2032 and lay down number two in 2026 ready perhaps in 2036, and with a serious upgrade to the K sometime in that time frame with nuke propulsion and perhaps em cats too...

And CNN can't BS Americans how rusty and bankrupt Russian army is and their interests in Ukraine don't have to be respected and Donald will be elected again instead of Killary.

CNN are going to bullshit, whether Russia is strong or weak... and the sheep that watch CNN don't want the truth anyway... they just want to see Russia is worse off than they are... even when it isn't true.

I doubt Russia will build 12 Liders, Maybe eight but 12 ehhhhh.

8 would be a better number... they are never going to have a huge fleet, they need to be smart about what they want, what they need, and what they can afford.

Of course with pretty much every ship having UKSK launchers their need for a lot of ships is reduced.

Russians don't have to build carrier to fight other carriers, supersonics is much cheaper way. Carriers make a blue water navy that can access any part of the planet and is a constant threat to US dominance.

Carriers for the Russians are about having an extra layer of sight and reach... an extra defence ring that can see as well as hit.

In comparison to an S-400 system on a ship, an aircraft can go out and investigate a blip on a radar screen and determine if the blip is a danger or a target.

Without aircraft, airliners will get shot down... and mistakes will be made.


For the commander of a surface group of ships being able to send out recon aircraft means much better knowledge of what is nearby, and the chance to get more information if needed... rather than just being able to kill or choosing not to kill.

PapaDragon wrote:
Russians definitely know about that thing called alliance. They also know how their allies have a habbit of routinely and repeatedly fucking them over.

So the solution is Norh Korea style isolationism. And I can't think of any recent betreyal anyway. Nazi Germany in 1939 wasn't really strategic ally, anti-Russian feelings in Eastern Europe in 1990 were even smaller surprise.

PapaDragon wrote:Why should they threaten US dominance? There is no money in that.

They have their own corner of the planet to worry about, rest of it is someone else's problem.

Austrian catholic priest said after the WWII: when the Nazis came for the Jews, I was quiet because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the communists I kept quiet because I wasn't a communist and when they came for the priests there was no one left to fight for me.

Russians could let Ukraine and Georgia to NATO and hell, why not even Chechnya, like they let fall the rest of Eastern Europe. But they are learning the importance of allies once again and adopting Cold-war-like thinking of fighting for every ally. Like giant Iran fights for tiny Syria. Trust me they will never get billions back but they have a corridor to the Mediterranean, which has existential importance for national survival. It's called geostrategy.

GarryB wrote:Carriers for the Russians are about having an extra layer of sight and reach... an extra defence ring that can see as well as hit.

I think we're focusing only on the tactical meaning of carrier in the war, but missing the strategic value in the peace. There's no better way of showing commitment to defend socialist Latin America states, than sending Kuznetsov and Pyotr down there on the drills. Kind of a war deterrent that could have a domino effect on G20 meetings, forcing the West to respect Russian interests and easying the construction of gas pipeline to EU, ending the sanctions.

Meddling is when you do something without the permition of the other country.

Doing business with 80% of the world population is isolationism? Classic western thinking. "Only we are important. We are the international community, Forget all the brown and black people."

Russia can reach Africa over land and air.

Like Russia asked for permission "government" in Chechnia or junta in Kiev? Or democratically elected rebel government in Syria?

Things aren't black and white, sometimes you support the rebels and sometimes the government, but you have to do something...even UN have white helmets. If you don't do anything Rwanda genocide can happen again.

Military intervension in Syria without ships? Trucks and planes are slow, expensive and dependent on Turkish good will.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Like Russia asked for permission "government" in Chechnia or junta in Kiev? Or democratically elected rebel government in Syria?

Things aren't black and white, sometimes you support the rebels and sometimes the government, but you have to do something...even UN have white helmets. If you don't do anything Rwanda genocide can happen again.

Military intervension in Syria without ships? Trucks and planes are slow, expensive and dependent on Turkish good will.

Chechnya is a constitutive republic of Russia. It was expressly internal question of Russia how to deal with it, without any permission. There was never "democratically elected rebel government in Syria". The only legal government in Syria is that of Assad! Eastern regions of Ukraine are densely populated with russian ethnicity, russian speaking.

I don`t know how does it connect with topic on future russian aircraft carriers. It is completely offtopic. Building of a new carrier is not in shipbuilding plans 2018-2025! "Leaders" are also not included.

kumbor wrote:I don`t know how does it connect with topic on future russian aircraft carriers. It is completely offtopic. Building of a new carrier is not in shipbuilding plans 2018-2025! "Leaders" are also not included.

I was arguing that Russia needs carriers for (a threat for) military interventions and that interventions are a-ok even if not everyone agrees with them.

CVNs aren't used for brown water operations.

And it's not so much for intervening as it is for a threat of intervention and deterrent of atttack on Russian allies.

verkhoturye51 wrote:And it's not so much for intervening as it is for a threat of intervention and deterrent of atttack on Russian allies.

tell me why none in Russian government (including MoD) is not sharing your ideas about building fleet then?

They do. But Rome wasn't built in one day. They started with corvettes in 2001, followed up with frigates in 2006, LST ships in 2018 and in 2026 first Lider should be laid down and then in 2030s it will be CVN's turn. It makes no sense to make CVN first, because its deployment strategy demands company of destroyers and submarines to be more effective.