Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Isos wrote:

Sounds like they are not losing at all, why do you think they are losing too much to hold the island?

1 cruiser, 1 landing craft with a tor, plenty of raptor boats, more AD got destroyed on the island.

Way too much if you ask me.

The cruiser was not in the island... The cruiser was interdicting the airspace around the Ukraine border to prevent air supplies. In fact because they lost the cruiser the island gained importance instead of losing it. Because from the island you can cover the airspace the cruiser was covering. Without the island you need to use the Admiral Grigorovich frigates to do the same air interdiction task or rely on air force to do it. Ukraine lost several helicopters and aircraft attacking that island. So if you remove your notion that the island had anything with the cruiser loss, which it didn't, you can see who lost most here. For some reason you only see Russian losses.

If anything I would fortify that island with bunkers and put a Buk-M3 or S-350 system in it.

lancelot wrote:In fact because they lost the cruiser the island gained importance instead of losing it. Because from the island you can cover the airspace the cruiser was covering. Without the island you need to use the Admiral Grigorovich frigates to do the same air interdiction task or rely on air force to do it.

I suspect that Russia has set up long range radars on Snake Island to fill the position the Moskva played monitoring Hohol airspace for weapons shipments and shooting them down as they enter from Romanian or Moldovan borders.

Lots of Kiev claims have been made, including claiming what appears to be one of their own helicopters being shot down as a Russian helicopter.

They lost several fighter and strike aircraft along with huge numbers of helicopters likely filled with troops, as well as landing boats presumably also filled with troops too... not to mention literally dozens and dozens of drones.

They claim the Cruiser was destroyed by anti ship missiles (2) but the photo evidence shows a serious fire but no big explosion or explosions you would see clear evidence of if there was a missile impact and explosion... honestly looking at the photo available I would say it might have been an S-300 missile launch fail that started a fire with potential internal explosions... if it was a drone attack we would be getting video footage from Kiev by now of their heroic attack... on this old obsolete vessel.

Apparently the creation of infrastructure for the production of aircraft carriers is foreseen in the new naval doctrine of the RF, I will post here the wording when I find it in the document...

"Development of a modern high-tech shipbuilding complex in the Far East, designed for the construction of large-capacity vessels (including for the development of the Arctic, modern aircraft carriers for the Navy),"

They reportedly have made upgrades to the Kuznetsov including launch assisting equipment they are very vague about... I rather suspect they will want to test the upgrades applied to the old ship before planning for new ones so that any new experience can be applied to their design.

They had VSTOL carriers and their experience was that they are not as capable as a normal STOBAR fixed wing carrier (short takeoff but arrested recovery... so chocks and a ramp for takeoff and cables to land.), but the smaller VSTOL carriers were very expensive anyway...

The result was the bigger Carrier design (Kuznetsov) which was about as small a carrier they could make for the Su-33 and MiG-29K to operate safely from, and their experience led to the Ulyanovsk which is even bigger and with catapults and conventional Yak-44 type AWACS.

The K was the smallest they thought would make sense and is too small for conventional Hawkeye like AWACS planes, while the U is big enough for cats and therefore AWACS and heavier loaded aircraft.

This upgrade has added something to improve takeoff performance which should increase takeoff weights which will further improve performance of the fighters.

Any new CVNs will have Redut and S-500 but wont be like the Kiev class mixed carrier cruisers.

But there is no point building new CVNs till new Destroyers and new Cruisers are in production... and they wont start laying them down for a few years yet.

New destroyers and new cruisers will likely be nuclear powered and all electric drive so they are going to have to invest in electrical systems and chips and equipment... but then such technology is going in to new cars and trains and trucks and buses and even aircraft so it is well worth investing in.

What I consider relevant here is that they have confirmed that they don't have the infrastructure needed to build the carriers. Zvezda is busy, as well as Sevmash.

Maybe developing the right bank of Bolshoi Kamen (Zvezdochka if I am nor wrong) and create there the structure needed to build carriers? They already have experience with nuclear reactors for the subs and the location would allow to use the existing industrial facilities and production environment. I think there is space to build a further dry dock with the required dimensions, but who knows what the plans are, or even if they are already defined to that point.

What they have confirmed is that the large shipyard they have that we speculated was for building carriers or other very large ships will likely be busy non stop making tankers and large cargo ships and other civilian vessels and they will likely need to expand and upgrade more shipyards able to build not just new carriers but all the new destroyers and cruisers that will be needed to support carrier based operations around the world which would also include long range support ships too.

They will not be building CVNs any time soon... they will need destroyers and cruisers in serial production and a full test run on the K and its upgrades first... plus they also need to step up civilian ship production... fishing factory ships and also large cargo and tanker and oiler vessels to deliver their products direct to their customers... bypassing western fleets which have proven so damn unreliable and subject to politics.

Sad for those western companies, but they are not fighting these sanctions so the result will be a new Russian fleet doing the same job they are doing... so not only do they miss out on work and contracts, they also get new rivals doing the same sort of work they do which will cost them money for lost contracts and also market share...

Old statements from Borisov to ilustrate the doctrinal battle in Russia re. the aircraft carriers and contrasting with the provisions taken in the naval doctrine:

Borisov believes that the development of high-precision weapons devalues the capabilities of aircraft carriers

The Deputy Prime Minister noted that Russia adheres to a defensive strategy and for it, unlike the United States, the construction of aircraft carriers is "a very controversial issue"
MOSCOW, April 19. /tass/. The development of high-precision and hypersonic weapons reduces the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups. The Russian Navy is able to solve tasks for their intended purpose at the expense of ships of the far sea zone. This opinion was expressed by Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov in an interview with RT.

"In principle, the development of high-precision weapons, hypersonic weapons sometimes devalues all the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups," Borisov said. "It's a target, yes. Although, of course, it is well protected, and it also has certain air and missile defense capabilities."

Borisov noted that Russia adheres to a defensive strategy and for it, unlike the United States, the construction of aircraft carriers is "a very controversial issue."

In his opinion, it is possible to achieve the goals that are currently set for the Russian navy by developing cheaper models, including ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14412887

It seems to me that the equation "aircraft carrier = imperialist tool" is deeply ingrained in the minds of many Russians, maybe because that was the official line in the times of the USSR? I am not neutral here since I fully support the development of such vessels for the VMF, but IMHO this cannot be further from the truth and is the result of the influence of US propaganda, which managed to create the opinion among the public that a carrier is intended as a means of attacking land forces in remote countries, when that is just a doctrinal abomination and the result of wasteful and illogical approach by the USN. Naval forces should not be used to attack land ones, and carriers should not carry almost 100 strike aircraft and the thousands of tons of bombs needed to sustain their carpet bombing of third world countries.

VMF on the other hand, thankfully, seems to be aware that the value of aircraft carriers is not determined by ideology, but by its unique capacity to bring air power to the naval domain, and is holding to existing carrier, and air wing, plus making sure the topic remains in the strategic documents. Let us see whether they manage to overcome the possible obstacles among the deciders in order to get design and construction plans started. The time is now, otherwise they may lose their current advantage due to missile technology and be exposed to USN naval airpower superiority in some ten years time.

Russian carriers will be air defence carriers and will be purely to support surface and sub surface vessel operations.

The Russian Army is equipped and fully ready to operate on territory where it does not control the sky, and the Russian Navy should be the same, but it also makes sense to use the Russian Air Force together with the Russian Army to secure the air above the Army so they can do their work more effectively and efficiently.

Unless the Russian AF expands to bases in over 100 countries around the world then there is little chance of them being able to follow the Russian Navy around the way they follow the Russian Army... the Russian Army can secure local airfields for the Russian Air Force to operate from so they can secure the skies for them.

The Russian Navy is not going to be able to secure airfields on land near where it is operating all the time so it needs to provide ships for aircraft to operate from.

And those carriers are not colonial carriers used to bully and threaten and invade... but the Russian Navy needs to help protect a country anywhere on the planet and make that country feel safe despite threats from the west regarding trade with Russia... even sending a couple of frigates or destroyers might be enough sometimes but other times actual aircraft can make all the difference to whether your trading partners ships get boarded and stolen or left alone.

The west has already sunk to the level of piracy and it will only get worse in the future as they get more desperate for oil and gas supplies...

Having a couple of aircraft carriers will not eliminate the problem, but having a strong navy able to sail anywhere with strength will lead to western countries having to respect their rights to open international waters.... or else.

Obviously they are going to build destroyers and cruisers and they are likely to be nuclear powered simply because they will last 50 years plus and fossil fuels might be hard to source in 50 years time, and while expensive to build they should be cheap to operate with likely no refuelling needed for their operational lives, and their unlimited endurance means getting somewhere quickly should be a capability they have, but of course when they get there it might be a week or so before the support ships arrive so having a decent weapon load will be important, making cruisers useful too.

Having air power where ever they go will just improve their capabilities and make decision making easier by providing more accurate and precise information about the airspace around them.

New trimaran design showcased at Army-2022

Isos wrote:They really need to stop with their fantasy designs every year. That's mike tge 10th. We all know if they make a carrier it will be a kouz copy or an Ulyanovsk.

Give it a rest.  Russians are sledged by Western clowns and accused of having no capacity for "innovation" yet when new concepts are show-cased they are similarly ridiculed for vapour-ware projects...

You seem to be suggesting that unless a project can be realised in the bending of metal then it isn't worth proposing or studying? IMHO its unhinged that some think that Russia shouldn't think outside the box and develop revolutionary weapon concepts simply because they currently lack the available resources (or be unwilling to allocate them to military needs) to make them a reality in the short term.

Russia has been engaging in developing paper designs/concepts for cutting edge innovative military technologies since the breakup in 1991, and even in the dark days of the 90s they have kept funds flowing to future plans and tech development. Cutting edge systems "with no analogs in the West' haven't simply appeared from nowhere, ie Sarmat heavy ICBM, Avangard HGV, Poseidon UUV, Burevestnik nuclear-powered LACM, Peresvet mobile laser, Zircon & Khinzhal hypersonic AShM/LACM, Armata, Su-57, S-75, PAK DP, PAK DA, Tu-160M2.

Russia will (re)develop a blue-water navy, and some form of carrier will be a core component of the new force structure.  Maybe they will go for a massive US-style fleet carrier such as Shtorm, or maybe a mid-size design like Lamantin, or maybe a larger number of smaller escort carriers...  who knows, but pushing the envelope of design concepts and considering innovative soutions is an integral part of an effective MIC that looks to support the nations future defense needs.

The design is interesting with three landing strips... would suggest that at different times in combat different strips would be used for different things... if you look at a conventional angled deck carrier the angled deck means you can land planes while other aircraft on the front of the carrier can take off, so you can launch more planes while planes are landing.

With three air strips when launching planes you could line up perhaps six planes... two rows of three, with deck mounted fold down barriers to prevent the engine exhaust interfering with the aircraft behind, so they can get prepared for takeoff quickly and once the front three are gone the shields can be dropped and the rear three can be launched straight away... but in terms of landing I really don't think landing three aircraft at a time would be safe and equally having planes take off at the same time planes are landing probably would not be safe either... a brake can fail and an aircraft veer out of line into the path of a landing aircraft... the other problem of course is that planes take off and land into the wind... so both would be going in the same direction... but one one need cables to stop them and the other would not want cables to slow it down.

Most multi hull carrier designs I have seen usually widely separate two runways and use one for take off and one for landing but have a huge deck and a correspondingly huge hangar underneath because if planes only land on one side then you need to transfer planes to the other side of the ship for takeoff after they are refuelled and rearmed of course.

And I have to agree with big gazza.... ohh noo... they have committed the cardinal sin of designing something the west believes it has perfected, and it does not look like any in service western systems... it must be bullshit...

Don't think for yourself... everything has already been invented that is worth inventing... stop thinking outside the box...

Which is probably why HATO does not know what to do about the Ukraine because they know they live in a house of cards with no glue and the windows are open...

Created electromagnetic catapults for aircraft carriers will be tested at a ground test site

Practical retraining of naval aviation flight and engineering personnel for new aviation equipment will also be conducted, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said.
MOSCOW, September 2. /tass/. Promising electromagnetic catapults can be tested at the ground-based training ground of naval aviation, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Friday during a conference call.

"This test site is intended for testing ship-based aircraft, ship-based aircraft equipment, aerial finishers and advanced electromagnetic catapults," he said.

According to Shoigu, during the current meeting, issues of performing development work on the creation of a landfill will be considered.

"In addition, it will be used to conduct practical retraining of flight and engineering personnel of naval aviation for new aviation equipment. Today we will discuss the implementation of this project, " the head of the Defense Ministry said.

At the moment, there are two ground - based NITKA test training complexes (aviation) in Russia-in Saki and Yeisk.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/15629727

Vague statements indeed, but they hint in the right direction...

Strange that the article doesn't mention that the PLAN carrier Fuijan (Type 003) also has electromagnetic catapults. Kinda pokes a hole in the claim that China wanted to buy the tech from Russia but was refused. I'd find it hard to belive that Russia already has a mature EM-based catapult, as without any candidate carrier on the horizon, why pre-invest and develop the tech now?

The Ulyanovsk was supposed to have steam cats but EM cats were later decided on and have been under development during all this time.

The K was considered too small for cats, the U was designed for cats and the heavier aircraft cats would allow.

I would think the Chinese probably would prefer to buy the technology rather than have to work it out for themselves, but I suspect they were not prepared to pay a reasonable price for the technology, and of course with Russia having not deployed it anywhere yet who is to say there are no problems with it...

The technology involved in EM cats will be useful across a wide range of applications including maglev trains and electric motors and electromagnets and super conductors and capacitors and batteries etc etc.

For electric powered ships and cars and trucks and buses and trains and ships and aircraft such technology will be valuable.

Even in terms of weapons a device that can accelerate a 20 ton aircraft from stationary to 250km/h in the space of 20m could be used to accelerate much smaller objects to much higher speeds... we have already heard about a drone catapult launcher they are testing... imagine one half the length of a ship that can accelerate a 1,500kg guided bomb to enormous speeds? Or a 100kg bomb for that matter as long as it is guided... that is the equivalent of a 203mm artillery shell.

When the power comes from the ships reactor and the "payload" is a warhead and a guidance system and steering fins it is a very efficient way of carrying ordinance for shelling landing zones or large numbers of small enemy boats trying to swarm you...

The enormous advantage of EM cats is that they can adjust and adapt... with a steam cat you set the pressure for the aircraft type, the fuel and weapon weight, and any specific ordinance it carries... get it wrong and the plane ends up with its nose on the deck (front wheel ripped off), or in the water.

You set it and it goes. With an EM cat it can detect the acceleration of the plane and increase or decrease power to suit so it gets airborne before it runs out of space.

The same could be used to vary the initial velocity of a bomb being launched, though the capacity to change the angle would be useful, being able to change the speed should allow the payload to be delivered to a suitable speed... direction by turning the ship.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Meh it's not about ideology but common sense and money.

I notice it distinctly, how often Russians seem to be emotional about the topic. It is not a normal discussion about another weapons system, but something else, frequently perceived as "the" tool of imperial ambitions they openly despise.

in short he said :
- Russia doesn't have need to build as big and expensive carrier groups - different tasks and money that can be spent on this purpose.

- Carriers will be included in Russian Navy but possibly smaller and cheaper.

Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions. But he misses that you cannot rely always in having a significant advantage in AD and AShM technology, and that you cannot simply cancel the contribution of air power in a warfare domain, that is simply nuts, similar to fighting the SMO without the participation of the VKS. Specially, when you experience an absurd numerical disadvantage vs the USN. He is smart enough, though, not to collide with the VMF decision power, but it is clear IMHO, that his opinion is contrary to carriers.

Speculating: CSG can be dealt with hypersonic weapons true, so why Russian Navy needs carriers? to me fighters for fleet protection and drones to carry ant ship missiles + awacs. How large lets see how military and budget keepers negotiate.

ANY surface vessel can be dealt with by means of hypersonic missiles TODAY, does it mean surface fleets are to be cancelled? Outright illogical argument that we keep hearing. Besides, the first ships that will be able to defend from such weapons by means either of DEW or high performance SAMs will necessarily be capital ships with high energy generation and conversion capabilities and spacious hulls to carry the equipment needed, included missiles of the size of S-500. Are corvettes going to be able to carry such missiles, but CVNs or nuclear cruisers not? Russia claims to have already the AD to counter potential US hypersonic weapons, but they at the same time declare their fleet to be defenceless against them, now and in the future? The whole argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's see whether  STOL/VSTOL fighter will materialize  in coming years?

VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

Borisov said to RT: wrote:As for aircraft carriers, these issues are constantly raised at Sochi meetings (with the president. - RT ). In principle, the development of high-precision weapons, hypersonic weapons sometimes devalues ​​all the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups.

> Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

The Americans need to have a deployed air group, because they are distant from us by the oceans and they somehow need to get to the main theaters of military operations.

He should read the naval strategy. Russia claims global reach and global interests, therefore they need to reach equally distant potential theaters of military operations

We preach a defensive strategy, therefore (for Russia, the construction of aircraft carriers. - RT ) is a very controversial issue.

1) Controversial issue in Russia, as stated above.
2) The defensive strategy has ultimately nothing to do with the carriers, because Russia does not want them to attack remote countries, but to defend their relationships with them and in general any legitimate interests of the RF in the world ocean

Of course, this type of marine technology cannot be abandoned, you need to constantly think about it, but this is an expensive undertaking.

Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor

It is possible to achieve the goals that we set for the navy by developing cheaper models, the same ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect. Therefore, the military must ultimately decide what they need in this regard. I, even when I was in the Ministry of Defense, never allowed myself to teach professionals what kind of weapons they should fight with.

There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.

I notice it distinctly, how often Russians seem to be emotional about the topic. It is not a normal discussion about another weapons system, but something else, frequently perceived as "the" tool of imperial ambitions they openly despise.

Western use has made it so, but reality is that air power cannot be ignored... the Russian Army have the air defence capacity to operate without their air force, yet they used air power in Syria because it just made sense.

Lifting radar into the air just makes sense too, and fighter aircraft can roam around the air space intercepting threats in peace time and war to identify threats and targets but also friendlies as well... imagine a cat launched S-70 that could be launched and fly 2,500km out to a potential threat at 950km/h at medium to high altitudes with optical and radar targeting pods on board as well as missiles... without risking any people... the enemy can't ignore it... when they respond you know there are hostiles there.... but you know when they are over 1,000km away... without any air platforms you see a radar blip and wonder what it is...

Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions.

I suspect he means they wont be competing with the US to make the biggest and heaviest and most expensive aircraft carriers... so they wont be 100K tons... I personally think they might come up with a clever design that maximises hangar size and aircraft space with minimal ship weight... but I still think the French are right with their estimates of 70-80K tons, nuke powered, EM cats...

He is smart enough, though, not to collide with the VMF decision power, but it is clear IMHO, that his opinion is contrary to carriers.

I don't think he appreciates that Russia is on its own now and needs to bypass the west and trade with the rest of the world directly instead of via western intermediaries who screw it and take profit from their trade, and limit their trade in other ways.

Russia claims to have already the AD to counter potential US hypersonic weapons, but they at the same time declare their fleet to be defenceless against them, now and in the future? The whole argument makes no sense whatsoever.

They are talking about aircraft carriers but I think they are mentioning that they need to be careful because they are not invulnerable. Ironically in Russian service they will be primarily air defence carriers, so their primary purpose will be to boost the air defence capacity of ships they operate with, but that is not what western carriers are for. Western carriers rely on air defence optimised cruisers and destroyers to defend them while they penetrate into enemy air defences... either land based or sea based to destroy ground or surface ship forces of the enemy.

VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

Just like on land they need two aircraft types... one for long range air superiority, for which the Su-27 was their best plane in the 1980s and their Su-57 is their best plane now, so it needs to be their big plane.

For their lighter plane the range and speed requirements are not so important, but I still think a STOL fighter makes the most sense... that twin engined MiG model would be my first choice obviously... especially if a land based version could also be used too so numbers make it cheaper.

A VSTOL fighter would be more expensive to develop and more limited in its performance and its primary advantage of being able to land or take off vertically will almost never be used in combat because of the performance limitations it imposes and the greater risk it entails.

The New MiG looks to me to be a better 5th gen Rafale...

> Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

Makes air defence even more critical which actually makes air defence carriers more important, not less important... more necessary.

We preach a defensive strategy, therefore (for Russia, the construction of aircraft carriers. - RT ) is a very controversial issue

Even from a pride and ego perspective... Venezuela would feel safer choosing Russia and China as allies over the US if Russian and Chinese carriers could come and visit and train and exercise in their waters whenever the US starts to threaten...

Not having carriers would make rest of the world countries hesitate to establish trade relations against the west... if you can back up your words then your words mean nothing. Ask Serbia over Russian verbal support all these years, or ask Georgia over US verbal support all these years...

That is not to say an aircraft carrier would have made any difference in Serbia and US carriers were impotent in Georgia too... it is no perfect system that fixes everything... the US spends over three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on defence and how often does it get its way without extra bribes and the use of the CIA and NSA.

Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor

Trying to emulate the US Navy would be stupid and I also think trying to get VSTOL fighters to a practical level is also a dead end until you have electric engines that blow air that has not been super heated and has not had the oxygen consumed from its exhaust... one day something practical might be developed but I have not seen anything that comes close to a more conventional design like a MiG-29K.

There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.

They went down the mini carriers with the Kiev class together with the British, and they went for a middle sized carrier with the Kuznetsov and their direct real world experience is that it is much better than a Kiev class ship, but still not big enough... they know they don't want a full sized American strike carrier like a 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class CVN, but they need a decent amount of space on their ship which is going to include more and more drone types.

I would like to see them experiment more with airships.... the core of making carriers big is to allow decent sized AWACS aircraft to operate from them safely... the EM cats are primarily for AWACS platforms to operate with decent levels of fuel... having an airship based AWACS platform which could have an enormous antenna array and even perhaps an onboard nuclear reactor to give unlimited electrical power which could be used to transition water to hydrogen and back and also power the radar and computing power needed... with powerful electric motors it should be able to keep up with and operate with any group of ships... perhaps with EMP weapons and directed energy weapons to protect itself (ie beams to disrupt electronics rather than blow things out of the sky.

You could design it so it can land on the sea surface with some sort of catamaran type hull with lots of optics and ports looking downwards that could allow it to be tethered in battlefields for observation at 20km altitude or higher with high power optics and radar to scan the ground and the airspace for targets.

The enormous internal volume of an airship would allow enormous radar antenna to be fitted... and the heat they generate when used will help make the airship remain buoyant. Hydrogen fuel cells and electrical current would allow the transition of water to hydrogen and back as needed for balance and lifting force respectively.

Modern strong lightweight materials that are fire proof and are not highly flammable like the paint and materials used in old airships would make it much safer.

The entire internal envelope could be purged with nitrogen so fires cannot even start where the hydrogen is stored.

Russian subs are nearly unstoppable, what can carriers do or why is it even needed for their navy? I think there is already an agreement that subs will be their primary funding before carriers.

Russian submarines are impressive and very necessary, but in terms of protecting friendly shipping how are they going to deal with potential threats... pirates for instance.

When you start sending ships to hunt for pirates then what stops those ships from being overwhelmed by enemy ships or enemy aircraft?

A Russian fleet that only has submarines and corvettes and frigates is thin and weak and fragile and could never be considered a blue water navy even if those corvettes are better armed than most western destroyers.

Look at the Falklands war... the money they saved not having a full deck fixed wing carrier they lost in ships and risky hair brained V bomber attacks on airfields.

With their previous carriers they could have smoked the airfields on the Falklands Islands using ship based Buccaneers with F-4 Phantoms providing CAP... those Phantoms could have attacked the airfields themselves if they wanted and gotten the job done.

A proper carrier with proper AWACS platforms could have removed the island as a radar black spot and those brave Argentine fighters that flew in low and attacked those British ships near the islands using iron bombs would not have been able to make those attacks... AWACS would have spotted them in plenty of time and Phantoms could have intercepted them well away from their targets.

Not every enemy is going to be the US and most of the time an armed vessel will be enough for the enemy to stand down and let you through, but having the right ship in the right place can make all the difference.

When the Israelis attacked that US spy ship... the USS Liberty, it was armed with two 50 cal HMGs... they would not have attacked it if it had decent armament... and they stopped attacking it when they intercepted the radio call saying the nearby carrier group had received their mayday and Tomcats were inbound...