Sorry.. I missed this post and will reply to it first:
The last time I saw someone "reply" to something they clearly didn't listen to or read was when some acquaintances came over with their 3 year old son...you're supposed to unlearn that behavior by the age of 6.
A lot of bullshit gets posted and I don't read it all, and I am not obliged to read it all. I will not apologise for not reading everything when I have no interest in the topic.
I'll start by pointing out that I haven't forgotten how you posted 2 years ago that the best thing the bolsheviks have done was to destroy the Orthodox Church in Russia (i.e. murder millions of Russians for their beliefs, which you apparently think is great because you don't like Christianity);
I have never said that nor have I ever thought that but considering your performance this far in you post I can understand that is what you might think.
Religion is personal but when it builds massive expensive buildings it becomes a cult. When people kill other people over religion it is not the people up top in control with power that die or suffer, it is the idiots at the bottom that generate all the wealth and do all the work that get killed.
I don't like any religion because it gives away responsibility... god will save us, it is gods will, god will provide... the bible says this or that about how to behave.
Part of the reason the west hates the east is because you picked the wrong branch of the religion in their view, but go on and defend religion all you like... I am not here to talk about religion or impose my beliefs on everyone else.
you then edited that post and unfortunately I was not yet in the habit back then of screenshotting stuff like this immediately, but it, together with the fact that despite the surely tens of thousands of hours spent on this forum about Russia you still haven't managed to learn the Russian language shows that, just like most "pro-Russian" Westerners you don't care whatsoever about Russia or its people.
What does my ability with languages have to do with anything. If I learned to speak and read Russian why would I even come to this English language forum in the first place?
Obviously I hate Russia and all Russians ask anyone here... NOT ...so you are wrong on that point as well... but you are not reading my posts so you will never know.
Will be moving this post and your post to the talking bollocks thread where it belongs.
[edit_ on second thoughts will leave it here because the bollocks about nuclear bombers is relevant as the only alternative to an aircraft carrier, but without the peace time benefits of surface ship groups visiting allies and holding exercises with countries around the world building military and economic ties with the rest of the world.]
BTW I am admin... I could ban you and delete every post you ever made and this entire conversation if I had secrets I wanted to hide, I am not even going to delete this absurd conversation either.
They could even engage in ASW, but what's the point?
As Andrei Martyanov pointed out (in fact, he wrote a whole book about it), the era where a CBG can do effective ASW using helicopters is over...that's why Yasen-M subs with Tsirkon are such a huge problem for the USN. Once the US gets similar capabilities, and they almost certainly will within the next 10 years, the same would apply to any large Russian warship going far away from Russian shores.
Once they have upgraded their naval air defences to stop hypersonic missiles and defeat incoming torpedoes the subs wont be the enormous threat you claim to be... or has technology just developed to destroy aircraft carriers and everything else is safe?
I respect Martyanovs views but he isn't always right about everything.
Ask an airforce person and they will say strategic bombing is it, a navy person SSBNs or maybe aircraft carriers... but my point is that during peace time carriers are a damn site more useful in day to day operations of a maritime trade and logistics network than a bomber ever could be.
The Flying Missile Fortresses (FMF from now on) are basically invulnerable to submarines, so why bother doing ASW with them?
There is no reason why those cruise missiles popping out of the water and flying thousands of kms to hit a land target could not be replaced with S-400 and S-350 and S-500 missiles to shoot down aircraft in the vicinity and a picket air defence line.
So it seems your reply is just a cope about your darling Soviet Union having collapsed and the Russian Orthodox Church having survived...now Russia must nurse that phantom pain of yours by building Soviet Era "anti-imperialist" ships all day long so you can sleep well at night.
I am glad the Soviet Union collapsed and I very much do not want it to be returned... those baltic states are a bunch of wankers that fed off Russian trade with Europe and hated Russians with a passion... **** them all. And Europe has exposed itself as hating Russia all this time, so screw them too... the break up of the Soviet Union has actually be really good for Russia because Russia was the strangest imperial country in the sense that its "colonies" often lived better than they did... the opposite of western colonial powers who stole and bleed resources from their colonies so they could live well in the home country.
I don't give the Russian Orthodox Church a second thought most days. I don't know enough about it to care and I am not interested enough to learn.
But don't take that personally... I don't learn about any religions because I am an adult and take personal responsibility for my actions and beliefs and don't need some religion to hide behind or to give me hope.
AMCXXL in the "Peter the Great" thread is (mostly) right, IMO...big surface combatants will become obsolete before long and Russia has the great advantage of already having a navy mostly configured for the "new era", i.e. a navy with a heavy submarine focus (Russia is the only country that has more deployed submarine displacement than surface warship displacement).
As I keep saying, submarines are useless in peace time. Ships operating any significant time away from Russian shores need to carry significant weapons and fuel which means they can't be corvettes or frigates or you could defeat the Russian navy anywhere simply by sinking the continuous stream of support ships sailing to and from whereever they operate to keep them going. Bigger ships are more self sufficient and more comfortable for the crews... but also more effective.
If you want to play chess by giving up most of your pieces and just have 15 pawns and a king then that is fine... you do that.
By the time you realise how limiting that is it will be too late... and I would say the Russian navy agree with me because they haven't scrapped all their old destroyers and all their old cruisers and they haven't scrapped their aircraft carrier. they have also laid down two 40K ton helicopter carriers... which are rather big ships aren't they?
Now, since these kinds of big shifts are rarely a sure thing I do disagree with him about PtG, which IMO should be modernized after Nakhimov and I don't think it would take 10 years and I also think it might make sense to buy a Kuznetsov-type hull from the Chinese and do the Kuz. mod. on it, except maybe with a nuclear power plant included. This is because it likely won't end up being too expensive and to ensure Russia has far reaching presence, first in the meantime until FMF can be built, and second in case there will be no FMF. I think it's unwise to engage in any kind of Lider-type or Lamantin-type project, however, and as I've already pointed out that won't be happening any time soon anyway due to the restructuring of the RFAF.
And then you back track on everything you say... the Chinese might be able to make an aircraft carrier cheaper than Russia... they can certainly make it faster... but 2 billion spent into the Chinese ship building industry as opposed to maybe 2.5 to 3 billion spent in the Russian ship building industry is a false saving by any measure.
Having it made in Russia keeps Russians working, and hires Russian subcontractors and assures quality of work.
When Russia starts building its own new carrier it will be a nuke and they wont even start it until they are building at the very least a new destroyer design, let alone a new cruiser design because the whole point of a carrier is for it to escort your surface ships and provide air support to them... having a carrier on its own is just stupid... ask the UK... and is the definition of a waste of money.
It is clear by now, that there are again uses for aerial nuclear power, as is evident with the Burevestnik cruise missile. It is also clear that nuclear reactors are far more advanced and much safer as well as cheaper than they used to be.
Thunderbird is a doomsday weapon... for all we know the operational model might spew out enormous amounts of radiation and not be safe for a human to be within 500m of an operating engine.
Even if they managed to make the nuclear power system as light as modern jet engines and modern fuel loads with the same thrust so it could carry the same loads... we are talking about less than 20 tons of weapons which is pathetic compared with the fire power of a surface action group... which includes aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers... which in the Russian navy will include hundreds of land attack missiles and thousands of SAMs as well as AAMs and air to ground weapons.
You talk a lot of bollocks and then say this:
Edit: actually, scratch my example as I seem to have had a misunderstanding about lifting power vs. thrust-to-weight...this reactor would definitely not be viable as an aircraft's power plant.
So what you are saying is that a really big nuclear powered aircraft will be cheaper than an aircraft carrier... but the point is that the aircraft carrier is to provide air cover for a large group of ships and its purpose is to protect those ships and itself from enemy attack... being surface ships they can sail to the other side of the planet and operate for months at a time... how is that air crew going to cope with remaining in an area for 3 months? Do you think just any country will allow one of these super huge nuclear powered bombers to land at their airfields... will they have airfields big enough and strong enough for them to land or does it have to fly all the way back to Russia and be replaced by another plane every week or couple of days.
But most importantly why do you think this big fucking plane will be safer from enemy attack than an aircraft carrier would?
Planes crash on their own without any enemy trying to shoot them down.
The whole idea sounds like the sort of thing someone from the west would come up with because they have now decided that Russian hypersonic and supersonic anti ship missiles can't be stopped... but they are aircraft focussed and always have been so if you can't have super carriers you have to have super bombers instead.
An airship on the other hand could follow a group of surface ships for months on end and carry enormous radar antenna that provides the AWACS a carrier provides... all it really lacks is the fighters, but if you make it a flat top it could carry very high flying long range drones to launch and recover when something pops up on the radar that needs to be investigated... if it gets shot down who cares... it has cameras and sensors so you should see what happens to it and make decisions based on that without worrying about lost crew needing to be rescued... but I would say a ship with supersonic fighters and AWACS platforms still makes sense... it is just that it needs Russian level air defence systems to go with it.... the best defence against hypersonic threats would be a powerful laser system which means you would need a rather big ship with lots of excess electrical power... like a cruiser... but if you have a cruiser then a carrier that can protect it would also make sense... see where this is going?
It is like the tank is obsolete so what you need is a powerful gun on tracks for mobility and of course you need protection... and you end up with a tank to replace the obsolete tank.