I don't understand how the Soviet Union managed to go the

>>31757593
Communism is a helluva drug, anon.

>>31757593
>Were they not even trying?
They did not. Carrier is an attacking weapon of imperialistic aggressors. USSR always played for defence and such weapon was not ideologically justified.

They also had extremely few amount of marines, despite everyone knowing a large amount of marines is the way to go. Has to do something with communism. Or maybe its geography. Nah, must be communism.

the cost effect of trillions of rubles being lost to a 10 thousand dollar missile didn't perk the politburo interests so much i guess

>>31757593
Communism, and an extreme lack of places to put a carrier.

>>31757593
>Why doesn't [insert modern country/nation/empire here] have the same economical, geopolitical and industrial conditions like the USA to build a enormous military-industrial complex focused on global force projection? Why can't everyone just be exactly like the USA?

>>31758809
they could just put the carriers where they always put their carriers


behind a tug boat

>>31758933
I think OP was talking about proper supercarriers, a la Nimitz-class.

So you'd need at least two tugboats.

>>31758890

Yeah, whatever you said

>>31758890
Actually more like

>Why is everyone but America such shit at everything? LIke are they all niggers or something?

>>31757593

Russia/USSR is not a maritime power, it's a land power first and foremost. All things naval were always secondary to the Russians. And even then, their most important vessels are subs, especially nuclear sub (there is ROUGH parity with the US sub-wise). Their surface fleet was always the least important combat branch of the armed forces.

>>31758960
well, with a nimitz class you wouldnt need any tugboats.

unless its the enterprise

>>31758890
>>31758962
Well that's easy, there is a scarcity of material resources and there is a scarcity of human capital qualified to manage and build all that up. Which means everything has a opportunity cost, the USA is already done that shit, so all countries allied with the USA just ride its coattails and those not allied with the USA try to gain leverage through other means.

>>31759003

>Russia/USSR is not a maritime power

That's a shitty excuse. The world is 4/5 ocean and if your greatest geo-political rival has a fuck-huge navy you should consider having one, too.

trillions of dollars of ship, aircraft, and personnel that can be knocked out by a hundred thousand dollar missile. mostly act as aircraft ferries and sit in port or circle around in the oceans wasting fuel and time. thousands of people packed into a sardine can so that uncle sam can pretend he controls the world.

>wew lad

>>31759122
It's not a bad one, considering Russia's strategic situation.

>no ocean to act as a buffer zone against invasion
>can drive tanks directly from the factory to the future combat zone
>enemies have the world's best navies

It makes sense they'd concentrate on ground forces and A2/AD.

Geography bruh.

>>31759138

>trillions of dollars of ship, aircraft, and personnel that can be knocked out by a hundred thousand dollar missile

So in other words, they couldn't figure out how to make an AEGIS equivalent.

File: kiev-battle-group[1].jpg (319KB, 1024x658px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1024x658px

>>31759146

It's more than just geography. They chose to build these abominations instead of true aircraft carriers. It just boggles the mind that in all of their history, the Soviet Union never made any real carriers at all, not even helicopter carriers.

>USSR has no warm water ports of its own
>USA has two massive warm water coasts
Makes sense that the USA would invest heavily in carriers to project power while the USSR would resort to stationary missile emplacments and bombers.

Submarines were a bigger priority for the USSR.

>>31759155
ah yes the magical aegis system which has never had a salvo of missiles fired at it irl

>>31759357

>I don't read the news: the post

AEGIS defeated multiple attempted missile salvos from Yemen last week.

File: Russian invasion of Georgia.jpg (1MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3504x2336px

>>31758421
>>played for defence

Yeah, that's why the Warsaw Pact had 60,000 tanks in Eastern Europe.

The reason the Soviets didn't invest in heavily in surface naval assets is many, but primarily 1)They didn't have a strong naval tradition and, more importantly, 2) they had direct land access to the expected area of conflict.

>>31759372
Lol the missiles landed in the water. I don't even think they were aiming for the ship

>>31759372
A) we're talking NATO-WARPAC days here
B) singular Iranian ASM vs. a salvo of modern russian missiles are not the same thing
C) in any time frame if it came to Russian(Soviet)-USA war than the Russians would fire nuclear warheads at the carrier groups and thus no ABM system could save our hornet nests

These carriers are a waste the US Navy is a waste and sailor fags are btfo and will never recover.

>>31759507
You're looking at it all wrong. Carriers are a means of projecting power over smaller nations. A carrier isn't going to threaten a super power, but it lets you intimidate/assault smaller nations with ease.

That is the point of an aircraft carrier to the USA. Like you said, a developed nation will lob nukes at carrier battle group.

>>31759561
even back in the soviet era our carriers were a waste of production. a huge enterprise nuclear carrier had little to no effect on our naval power beyond being able to tender and ferry planes across the ocean a little faster than transport ships would.

even in a conventional war carriers would be at the top of the enemies target list and just be a reserve force. using carriers rather than airfields which are a lot mroe plentiful near these smaller nations has been an excuse to keep our over bloated carrier force in existance.

>>31759561
>Nukes vs CSG

Nobody has a delivery system to nuke a carrier group, unless you plan to locate them by crystal ball and have Scotty teleport the bomb to them.

>>31757593
Different doctrine, they planned to invade Europe, not the US.
They wanted a navy that could fend off our navy while they rolled across Europe.

File: INS_Vikramaditya_during_trials[1].jpg (112KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x533px

>>31757593

I think you guys are kind of missing the point of the thread. The Soviets did make carriers, sorta, but not "real" carriers. Look at this: it's literally a Kiev-class cruiser that the poos took and turned into a real carrier. So why didn't the Soviets just build them like this in the first place? Yeah, it still isn't nuclear, but it is still much more capable as a carrier versus the Kiev class that it was built on.

>>31759629
>Satellite surveilance of something that moves 25 mph is tough.
It'd be easy, brah.

Carriers are good for the USA because of how isolated it is. They let her project power and influence far beyond her shores like nothing else.

>>31759685
The soviets preferred to go with visual confirmation and not just blow a load of missile and aircraft at a suspected carrier. They expected 50% losses on any bomber raid against a suspected carrier be it successful or not so commanders relying purely on satellite data are risking too much.

>>31759629
unlike the inherently impotent nimitz et al. the kuznetsov just happens to carry a dozen shipwreck missiles which can deliver 500kt. if a super awesome nimitz and it's invulnerable complement of aegis patrol boats happesn to be within a few miles of the blast of just one of these totally pathetic russian missiles than emperor clinton will need to write a lot of letters to some admirals families.

>>31759685
>>Satellite surveilance of something that moves 25 mph is tough.
>It'd be easy, brah.

How? Visible light? IR? Radar?

Because all of those have huge problems. The required resolution means you'd need between 18 and 20,000 satellites, by the way.

>>31759713
He really thinks CBG are difficult to detect for developed nations.

Because everything Russian Empire and Soviet Union and now Russia again would potentially want to conquer or control can be reached by land.
It makes no sense for them to have a huge blue-water navy.
And while they made some token efforts here and there navy was always secondary to land forces, and in Soviet times it was the least relevant arm in their own doctrine.

File: 1336879086796.jpg (224KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1600x1200px

>>31759674
See
>>31759651
>>31759315
>>31759146
>>31759373
Objectively, they didn't need carriers, they didn't need to project force across large bodies of water. Why build carriers when your target is right next to you, it made more sense to build a force designed counter to our fleets and airforce.

>>31759712

>the kuznetsov just happens to carry a dozen shipwreck missiles which can deliver 500kt.

Using your carrier to deliver a missile, rather than just using a fighter jet to deliver the missile from the carrier, is just pants-on-head retarded.

>>31759460
The military is being very tight lipped about the whole incident. They released just enough information to keep the Russians and Iranians in the dark about the real capabilities of Aegis.

>>31757593

Declassification of USSR strategic doctrine documents indicates they always assumed American/NATO aggression.

No need to police the world or project power.

>>31759122

> The world is 4/5 ocean

Why would you care about that when you have land borders with all the parts of this world that are actually relevant?

>>31759713
>the russians don't have the coords on every US carrier at this moment with silo missiles prepared to fire on each within 3 minutes

>>31759770
Well transport by sea is faster and cheaper and all that. Not disagreeing with you just offering an argument this idiot won't think of.

>>31759744
http://cimsec.org/deception-and-the-backfire-bomber-part-one/21349

>>31759744
It's nearly impossible to build a kill chain for a maneuvering CSG. It's a known problem. Magic satellites don't change that.

>>31757593
As the story goes, Stalin's admirals came to him with the plan for a grand Soviet navy.

He asked them if it would be better than America's navy. And they said no.

So he told them to come back with a not retarded plan or he'd send them all to gulag.

And that's why the Soviets focused on building subs.

>>31759755
>fighter not delivering a 7k kg missile is retarded
how many TLAMs does the F35 carry again? RUSSIA BTFO

File: russian-dog-doge-communist-russia-1421240491F[1].jpg (44KB, 960x955px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x955px

>>31759770

Because how can you liberate the proletariat from their capitalist oppressors without force projection?

>>31759758
it is obviously a magical force field and the Yemeni missile attacks was obviously not a false flag in order to assist our Saudi """allies"""

>>31757593
They considered it a huge target. a huge multimillion dollar target. For them submarines were the future of naval combat.

>>31759755

Granit P-700 is as large as a small fighter aircraft. Even strategic bombers don't carry missiles of that size.

>>31759755
Fighters are much more vulnerable than ships covered in CIWS. Our military doctrine was to retake Europe and aggressively project force across the globe to contain communism. Theirs was to invade Europe and hold off the NATO fleets while doing it.

>>31759823

>liberate the proletariat from their capitalist oppressors without force projection?

That's the kind of job the proletariat should do by themselves. We can only help them realise the degree of their oppression and encourage to take weapons against the 1%.

>>31759315

>Submarines were a bigger priority for the USSR.

How many active nuclear submarines did the USSR have at the their peak? Where would this information be found?

>>31759808
There's a bit of bullshit in that. It wouldn't take 100 bombers to neutralize a battle group with nukes. Let's be honest, if there ever was or is open war between the USA and Russia it will be nuclear. It doesn't take 100 nuclear bombers to neutralize a suspected or actual CBG.

>>31759948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#Submarines
64 nuclear attack submarines as of 1990

>>31757593
Because no deep warm water ports

>>31759974
this guy literally said you'd need 18-20k sattelites and 100 bombers to destroy an american carrier group and you are still trying to communicate with it

>>31760028

Clue me in on warm vs cold water.

>>31759948

183 in 1990, according to globalsecurety dot org.

Note that most of those were hopelessly obsolete and in the event of a war with the west would have served the role of "ablative armor capable of absorbing one Mk 48 or 54 torpedo"

>>31760033
You'd need between 18 very large active radar tracking satellites and 20,000 passive daylight/clear weather only optical/IR satellites to constantly track carriers. The big ones would be illegal.

In either case, it would be a gigantic investment.

>>31759744
Detecting is vastly different than weapons grade targeting data.

File: Map_Rus_MAARINE.jpg (57KB, 720x436px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x436px

>>31760038
Basically every winter half of their ports freeze over, the remaining ports like in Crimea or in the Baltics force ships to go through naval choke points (Dardanelles/ Gibraltar) and get raped by coastal defense which makes any billion dollar carrier other then cheapo UK style ramps with VTOL aircraft (Kiev Class) redundant, the ports at the far east meanwhile like Vladivostok would of been away from all the action in Europe, so basically they are stuck with no worthwhile Deep Water ports that don't freeze solid every year to base such assets from without having them blown apart if they try to cross a corridor flanked by hostile countries.

>>31760145

Cuba has warm water ports. Why not build the carriers there?

>>31760170
Because then you get Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0: Carrier Edition

>>31760094
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1sBGyGlr10FgCE3ODmS-7GIgH7RI&hl=en_US

>satellites to track carriers when everyone is broadcasting mobile PCS signals and their mission orders are probably intercepted on a daily basis by russia and china

>>31759122
It has to do with their treaty obligations for the black sea and not being a force projection based navy

>>31760202

>In the event a carrier is practicing no emissions control it's easy to detect.

Shit, nigga, you should just shoot them when they are at port for 6 months out of the year. Easy to find them then.

>>31760228

>It has to do with their treaty obligations for the black sea

Go on.

>>31760202
Wow, how retarded are you? The whole point was tracking carriers with an accuracy to confidently commit assets for an attack and that takes a shit ton of resources especially if you have to rely on satellites.

>>31759507
>never served, the post

>>31759507
>C) in any time frame if it came to Russian(Soviet)-USA war than the Russians would fire nuclear warheads at the carrier groups and thus no ABM system could save our hornet nests
which is assuming that they can locate said group

that's a big assumption

Because Soviets had vastly superior submarines which made up for the aircraft carrier shortfall

>>31760241
either a large surface vessel which launches aircraft a couple hundred kms from it's target is inherently easy to target and track or it is not

maybe the nimitz has some kind of invisibility cloak or something but, as i understand it that during standard naval war games our carriers are consistently sunken by diesel electric submarines due to the ease of tracking their massive turbines

whether a carrier is in prot or actively launching top secret strikes my money is that russia knows it's ten digit grid and has nuclear missiles prepared to launch against it

>>31760279
It's a fairly common assumption from the brain-dead who get off to thoughts of Russian missile spamming a carrier, totally disregarding all the measures developed by the USN/NATO to degrade the enemy kill-chain and also not to mention the limitations of Russian C3 tech.

>>31760041

>Note that most of those were hopelessly obsolete

Same applies to Reagan's famous "600-ship navy" composed of refurbished obsolete warships.

>>31760273
>>31760278
>>31760279
please gib more pentagoon tears

>>31759814
Both before and after WW2 Stalin had wanted to build a large navy to at leat challenge the US and UK.
The Project 23 battleships and Project 69/82 battlecruisers were laid down to escort large fleet carriers.
They were all scraped by Khrushchev who wanted to focus on missiles and subs instead.

>>31760306
Give the carriers the invisibility cloak, johnny. It's only fair if you gave the Russians magic anti-fog-of-war glasses.

>>31760329
>Because the missile [Dong Feng 21] employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes... Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
>US Naval Institute

Ok buddy our carrier groups aren't a total waste of money and resources and lives. You win. Literally, aircraft carriers can become invisible, submerge, and fly all while launching millions of Zigs for great justice. Fuck yeah!

>>31760384

Stalin also ordered the creation of 16-in self-propelled guns. Basically battleship guns mounted on tracks. The Soviets are quite fortunate that Stalin died (for more reasons that 1) because his military ideas were mostly shit.

>>31760394
CARRIERS ARE EASILY DETECTABLE,
TRACKABLE,
AND KILLABLE. <-- this is a period

>>31760422

>DETECTABLE

Yes.

>TRACKABLE

Harder than you imagine.

>KILLABLE

The US has never lost a carrier in any war.

>>31760415
Were any created, or at least some concept drawings?

Now I'm curious what the hell that'd look like...

>>31760437
>The US has never lost a carrier in any war.
>any war

>>31760437
> The US has never lost a carrier in any war.
Stop.

>>31760437
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers#United_States
>the russians have never missed with a single nuclear warhead that they have fired at a US carrier group

my statement is true. yours is not. gibs meh mo dem neocon tears plox

>>31758890
>>31759003

These and..

1) Skills and tech the USSR would have to completely create on their own as opposed to it being a simple evolution of current tech. So more expensive.
2) No Historical Naval Tradition
3) Mostly Land Locked Country, Most of their ports suck. US all about ocean control because of countries geography.
4) No pressing need for Naval Force projection/Sea Control.

This is one reason all their carriers were strike/hybrid or support carriers
They needed to kill our carriers but no real need to build full sized carriers

See
>>31759674

They could of grunted hard and made these but really did not feel need.

>>31760446
The battleship was called Sovietsky Soyuz class and the battlecruisers were the Stalingrad and Kronshtadt class, there are plenty of drawings on google.

>>31759104
Mobile Chernobyl is in its own class, not the Nimitz class

>>31760475
I meant the self-propelled guns, but those are nifty as well.

>>31760402
That absolutely does not mention anything of how it will defeat fog-of-war genius. Please explain to me how. Please explain to me what you quoted would lift fog-of-war over a CSG enough that they'll be able to fire the missile in the first place.

File: fot.5-616x354[1].jpg (98KB, 616x354px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 616x354px

>>31760492

File: 2191[1].jpg (138KB, 735x551px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 735x551px

>>31760515

More modern picture. All of the 40.6 cm howitzers are still intact, though they were retired to museums long ago.

File: Carrier_Baku.jpg (3MB, 1900x2490px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1900x2490px

>>31759674
Was originally the Baku. When USSR broke up name was changed to Admiral Gorshkov since city was no longer in country. Major change in operational characteristics when it became the STOBAR carrier named INS Vikramaditya. USSR could of built but just did not have need.

File: image486.jpg (26KB, 270x200px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 270x200px

>>31759755
See:
>>31759858

The big Soviet/Russian anti-ship missiles aren't like any "missiles" that the US has ever fielded, at least since the Regulus II, the Navajo, or the Bomarc.

These things are seriously big, and are fast unlike anything the US has ever fielded. The Granit is basically an SR-71's engine nacelle with either 2500k lbs of HE or a .5 megaton nuclear warhead in the tip, and with a rocket booster so it closes at north of Mach 2 while skimming the surface.

A Harpoon, by comparison, carries 488 lbs of HE and tops out at about 600mph.

Comparing a Harpoon or Exocet to the big Russian ASM's is like comparing a mini-22 to an M2.

>>31760515
>>31760534

Fuckin' Stalin.
The madman actually built them...

>>31760510
>the carrier is tracked by a russian sub
>the carrier is tracked by a russian aircraft
>the carrier is tracked by a russian sattelite
>the carrier is tracked by a fucking russian on an intertube with a laser designator
>the carrier is tracked by a defector amongst one of 10,000 personnel within it's group
>the carrier is tracked by a homing device which was installed 3 years ago by a russian saboteur
>etc.

the possibilities are endless and if the carrier and its effect is out of sight who gives a fuck about it. when its group begins scanning and it's aircraft start flying into air radar level then its only a matter of firing the missile and allowing it to home into a very large steel structure surrounded by water.

>>31759104
The enterprise is the first and only one of her class. Nimitz carriers were modified versions of the enterprise.

File: INS_Vikramaditya_(R33)_with_a_Sea_Harrier_aircraft_in_the_Arabian_Sea[1].jpg (342KB, 1600x933px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1600x933px

>>31760557

You have to admit though, what the Indians did to that ship really made it better, both functionally and aesthetically. If the Soviets were smarter, they would have built it like this in the first place.

>>31759138
>wasting fuel
> a nuclear carrier
> wasting fuel
Wot

File: 2A3_Kondensator[1].jpg (144KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 800x600px

>>31760572

Rate of Fire: 1 shot per 5 minutes.

However, they were intended to use nuclear artillery shells, so firing slowly wasn't really a problem. The guns were intended as a response to "Atomic Annie."

>>31759674

well to be fair, the Russians the Kuznetsov Class as well

>>31760610
uranium. escort vessels. aircraft. there is no reason to project power at sea levels. just as battleships have become obsolete so are aircraft carriers. the US navy just doesn't want to admit it despite the knowledge what 10 advanced ASMs could do to the entire fleet on day 1.

>>31760583
>the carrier is tracked by a russian sub
Subs cannot give accurate position data without breaking EMCON. At best they can mark the general location of a CSG but it's still going to be a shot in the dark you'll hit a carrier with that oh-so-expensive missile spam.

>the carrier is tracked by a russian aircraft
Yes and the USN hasn't taken this into account already seeing as how I've already linked an article where a Russian naval officer talked about how important visual recon was to Soviet navy commanders?

>the carrier is tracked by a russian sattelite
Scroll back up, several anons already posted how hard this is and how even the Soviets didn't trust it enough to launch attacks without other sources confirming a CSG's location.

>the carrier is tracked by a fucking russian on an intertube with a laser designator
Allied Dolphins where killer sonar tech.

>the carrier is tracked by a defector amongst one of 10,000 personnel within it's group
If we're assuming that let's also assume some guy with a walkie-talkie at the Tu-22 base keeps calling in how many bombers have already flown.

>the carrier is tracked by a homing device which was installed 3 years ago by a russian saboteur
A bunch of plucky SAS save the world by shooting down and ICBM just in time.

>when its group begins scanning and it's aircraft start flying into air radar level then its only a matter of firing the missile and allowing it to home into a very large steel structure surrounded by water
Yes because ECM isn't a thing and hasn't been proven effective several times already.

Also the DF-21 is Chinese, not Russian and there are been no indication that the Chinks have armed it with nuclear warheads.

Looks like the Kuznetsov has triggered a lot of people.

>>31760636

So they went the entire Cold War and only built exactly 1 true carrier the entire time???????

Look, I'm not one of those people who looks down on the Kuznetsov. It's a good functional design, and with lots of defensive weapons. Not as good for strike missions as the Nimitz, but that was not the Kuznetsov's intended function. But they only built one. Why? They should have made at least a dozen of these ships. And don't tell me they couldn't afford to, because they apparently had enough money for 183 nuclear submarines at one point. Did they really just not recognize the utility of surface vessels? It's amazing.

>>31760639
>just as battleships have become obsolete so are aircraft carriers.


I don't trust some random anon on the internet with such a bold assertion.

>>31760569
And has a range of 600km. Serious doubts exist on actual effectiveness of guidance system though. The combat network the thing supposedly uses means it's not a stealthy attack mode.

If a opposing force started using nukes to try to kill carrier groups then the US would probably respond in kind.

File: indian-tracker1.png (632KB, 639x712px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 639x712px

>>31760583

File: 1473131899873.gif (3MB, 286x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 286x258px

>>31760639

>just as battleships have become obsolete so are aircraft carriers.

An aircraft carrier is basically just a mobile airbase. Are airbases obsolete?

>>31759003
>surface fleet was always the least important combat

and seeing that pathetic pos aircraft carrier (with 3 aircraft) pass by Dover, it shows

>>31760592
Yes it does seem to be well thought out and when you look at India's future they do need sea control.

It's actually a very pretty ship. Not like looks would win a fight but...

Nice action shot with the aircraft too...

>>31760725
>If a opposing force started using nukes to try to kill carrier groups then the US would probably respond in kind.
That was the point, the purpose of missiles like the Granit, Kh-22 and Bazalt were to sink USN carriers before they could launch nuclear attacks on the USSR. Kiev, Kirov and Slava classes (and the rest of the Soviet Navy) were all built for an all out nuclear war.
All they cared about was getting the largest number of launch tubes at sea. Literally nothing else.

>>31760705
As it has been explained in this thread, Soviet planners didnt consider the cost worth it. The Soviet Navy's job was to protect the Motherland, act as a flank to attack/defend Europe and strategic deterrence in the form of their boomers. Also, why try to compete with the Americans at their own game? The odds are not in your favor. Its best to try something different in order to counter American CSGs

>>31760725
I always thought that the idea that any conflict between peer states where killing CBG's was ordered wouldn't IMMEDIATELY go nuclear was some Forrest Gump-tier naivete.

And in that context, the nuke-tipped Russian ASM's are remarkably pragmatic, especially since naval power in the midst of a nuclear exchange would REALLY be about who could high-tail it fastest to South America or Africa to bully some 3rd world shithole into submission get their follow-on civilization started faster, anyways.

>>31760762

>The Soviet Navy's job was to protect the Motherland

The best defense is a strong offense. Without force projection, how would you defend against outside threats?

>act as a flank to attack/defend Europe

This is another thing which carriers do very well.

>and strategic deterrence in the form of their boomers

You still need surface assets otherwise the enemy is free to hunt down your boomers and track their movements, rendering them worthless.

>>31760830
>Without force projection, how would you defend against outside threats?
30,000 strategic nuclear warheads.

File: 0_10c3e3_e2f013f_orig.jpg (392KB, 1040x1960px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1040x1960px

The Russian Navy has plans to build 4 aircraft carrier battle group at least.

>>31760844

Not all threats merit a nuclear response.

>>31760856
Even as a Russian Navy fanboy (sue me) I can say thats a joke.

>>31760863
When all you have is a hammer, every thing looks like a nail.

>>31760856

The modern Russian navy seems more aware of the value of naval aviation, but lacks the resources to actually build a large fleet of carriers.

The Soviets had the resources, so that excuse doesn't apply to them. They failed.

File: bzzzz.jpg (126KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1920x1080px

>just cuck my carrier up senpai

>>31759712
the stupidest thing I've read today

>>31760856

>The Russian Navy has plans to build 4 aircraft carrier battle group at least.

That's a nice step in the right direction, but they need at least a dozen carrier groups in order to compete with the US.

>>31760974
> That's a nice step in the right direction, but they need at least a dozen carrier groups in order to compete with the US.

The China will build the rest to compete with USA.

>>31760974
They don't plan to compete with the US. They even implied it themselves with the press release.

>>31760990
>compete

They were building one. Then capitalism happened and it got cancelled and scrapped while only 20% complete.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk

>>31761012

>We're not going to compete with our greatest geo-political rival

They are part of the game whether they like it or not. Sometimes you don't chose the battle. Sometimes the battle chooses you, and when that day comes you're either ready or you're not.

>>31760944
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
a training for conventional attack by iran's anti-ship platforms in the persian gulf ended with a united states carrier battle group being destroyed. all a nuclear missile operator would need is a position for the carrier within the last 30 minutes and that carrier would be whacked.

>>31759561
>>31759623
Your two are retarded. The point of the carriers was to take out the Soviet Navy and secure the SLOCs and be able to give support to land forces where needed. Carriers are immensly important, their floating airfields with sometimes Marine forces in tow to boot. Carriers absolutely threaten superpowers because it changes the entire equation when you bring it into an area.

>>31761046
wonder what they did with the hull
right about the time medvedyev announced that the russian navy would build up to 4 more carriers
is when NATO started funding the orange revolution in Ukraine
withou Mylaiev, any large russian ships are pretty much kaput
unless they work with the indians or chinese

for their purposes though aircraft carriers are worthless. it isn't like they're planning on invading south america like we need our carriers for arabian oil.

>>31760727
when the enemy nation has the best ground to air defense in history, kinda

>>31759685
No it's very difficult, satellites are not some "see all wizardry". Now if I had a good idea where a carrier might be or where it was last seen, that might work. But for the most part the Soviets relied on either visual or radar contacts to confirm the locations of the fleet (or whatever you're targeting) that info is sent back to headquarters and ground controllers vector the bombers or whoever into strike position.

File: ulyanovsk-03.jpg (307KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1920x1280px

>>31761174
>wonder what they did with the hull
Scrapped in 1992.

>>31761083
>Mentioning MC '02 unironically

Just how new are you to /k/?

>>31761219
were the missions parameters not up to /k/tard standards or something?

>if my assertion is matter of factly disproven than i must deflect from the facts and attempt too control the failure of my arguments /k/ pyscops FM-33-1-1

>>31761295
http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/

>>31761295
They were not, the Marine general in charge put to sea about 25 leisure boats (aka ski boats) and had them fire off about 10 missiles each (which technically are longer and weigh more than the boat itself) within 10 miles of the carrier group. Not to mention, he instructed all of them to do it at the same time before hand. It's the equivalent of dropping a tank division into a camp for an infantry company and saying you won just because.

tl;dr Marine general has dozens of boats fire hundreds of missiles instantly as soon as the war game began, vaporizing the carrier then defending his ridiculous scenario by saying "But i still won"

>>31757593
They were fucking poor and stupid ass reds

>>31761295

oh I forgot, he knew the position of not only the carrier group itself (and the escorts) but also the load out in those escort units and placed his units accordingly where their ability to engage missile coming from the opposite side of the carrier group was limited.
>>31761338

>>31761338
untrue
the boats were for laying sonar bouys and riper used the actual iranian inventory of land and air lanuched cruise missiles at the time to effect the destruction of the CBG

File: Russian navy a shit.png (369KB, 1896x1700px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1896x1700px

>>31759373
>They didn't have a strong naval tradition
boy you got that right

>>31759755
you do know that the only reason russians did this is because turkey would have denied any access to the black sea right?
there is a reason as to why adm k doesnt being called aircraft carrier but a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser

File: russian baltic fleet.png (886KB, 1837x2153px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1837x2153px

>>31761397

>>31759373
You forgot....Everytime the Russian Navy docks somewhere half the crew defects.

>>31761386
No, he had planes and boats launch multiple missiles each that were larger than the platform firing it.

>>31761386
>>31761484

The actual events of this wargame seem very obscure for some reason. Is it because the truth is so boring that nobody bothered to write about it?

>>31761581
as best as i can tell from my 10 minutes of reading it seems some of the boats (i imagine yacht sized) fired safflowers which is not really bizarre other than being surprising for the US naval player. so there you have it a USN carrier group can be destroyed easily through a suprise attack by boats carrying chinese 1980s missiles within 85km.

Looking at Command: Moderan Air Naval Operations scenarios NATO/Soviet and modern aircraft carrier attacks are mostly succesful just going by the numbers. A carrier group is king out in the ocean but when it gets into range of numerous land based missiles and airfields it's fucked. Which is pretty much the basket we put 3 of our carriers in every day inluding the 6th fleet.

>>31759138
This. Aircraft carriers haven't been relevant since WW2.

Watch the Carrier series, they just cruise around doing fuck all and wasting everyone's money practicing landing on pitching decks.

Russia has airbases close to everywhere it needs to attack or defend, and doesn't usually go out trying to posture around the world.

Aircraft carriers are more for posturing and intimidation than anything else. I give them 10 years and they will be phased out.

>>31761581

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/09/mil-020917-dod01b.htm

Aside from what others have already highlighted as issues with Van Ripper's firing platforms, there was also the issue that the fleet's defenses was pretty much shut off because the navy tried to make the simulator do something it wasn't programmed for and it began to shoot every civilian unit in range.

>>31759761
Are there any militaries which declassify documents demonstrating an aggressive posture involving nuclear attack? It wouldn't serve any nation to do so.

File: 1357244288572.jpg (56KB, 310x310px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 310x310px

>>31758421
>USSR always played for defence
Please don't tell me you actually believe that.

>>31758995
Why doesn't the United States have whites as a large majority of their population? Like are they all niggers or something?

>>31757593
No, they weren't. Why would they? How is ONE nuclear aircraft carrier going to stand up to the U.S. fleet?

>>31761832

>How is ONE nuclear aircraft carrier going to stand up to the U.S. fleet?

You build at least a dozen of them. They don't all need to be nuclear-powered necessarily, but you need at least 12 carriers in total, and at least half of them must be nuclear powered.

>>31759801
Not if you're Russia.

>"Oh, I guess we'll transport this by rail up to Arkhangelsk, ship it past Norway, then all of Europe, then around Africa (Can't into Gibraltar), then all the way around Asia, and get it to Vladivostok.

>>31761881

>Not just building a fuck huge canal

>>31760863
Then a shitton of Armored Divisions heading towards Paris.

>>31761860
OK so now we've gone from one Aircraft Carrier to a Dozen. Are you confident a dozen will sink the U.S. Carrier fleet?

File: Absolutely Fuck Huge Canal.png (772KB, 2000x1270px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 2000x1270px

>>31761913

>>31762021
and yet it still wouldn't be faster or cheaper than using the trans siberian railway...

File: type22.jpg (101KB, 1354x768px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1354x768px

why don't we patrol any nimitz's in the south china sea? it's not like a couple dozen little chinese patrol boats with a hundred anti-ship missiles could possibly stop le Nimitz of stealth and invicibilty.

>>31762021
>a canal encompassing more of the Earth's surface than most countries
I don't think it can be done during the five year plan.

>>31760145
Why didn't they expand more in Vladivostok and the rest of the East coast. The US has major cities and military bases along its West coast, so why is it that there's fuckall in Eastern Russia by comparison?

>>31762057
>we

all you do is patrol internet to jerk off to chinese cartoon girls

as for us navy, they are in south china sea routinely, heck recently news were wapping how chinese "hacked" USS Ronald Reagan on patrol out there ...

>>31762057
They do sometimes.

>>31762057
They throw a hissy fit every time we've done it. If I'm not mistaken in 2004 there was a huge storm and about 10 Navy ships (Burkes, Ticos and a carrier with full complement) requested berthing in some port in South China for a day or two while it passed. The Chinese government denied it so the whole fleet sailed at flank speed through the Taiwanese Strait to make it home before the storm hit Japan. Apparently it made the Chinese gov nearly blow a gasket over it.

>>31757593
Soviet reactors explode

>>31760746
Depends on who the adversary is. I don't think the Indian Navy is planning to duke it out against a US CSG. IMHO their strategic goal is to be a dominant regional power to thwart the likes of Pakistan and China. It's a bad neighborhood to be in. Considering who their adversaries will likely be, I think it's a potent combat platform.

I'm quite interested to see what their capabilities will be after they commission the new Vikrant.

File: 0_82b65_d659c43b_orig.jpg (4MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3504x2336px

>>31762097
guess it's a combination of harsh climate, remoteness, lack of population and unfavorable coastline
i mean their main millitary shipyard on the east is Komsomolsk on Amur which is 150 miles inland (you actually have to sail hundreds of miles on the Amur to get to the sea)
pic is Vladivostok

>>31759373
>Yeah, that's why the Warsaw Pact had 60,000 tanks in Eastern Europe.
Exactly, after June 21 1941 their motto was NEVER FUCKING AGAIN. Pre-emptive strike is defence too.

File: 1464146605730.jpg (85KB, 660x522px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 660x522px

>>31760856
>Russians release CGI rendering or model of what they want to build
>"Guys we are totally gonna build 100,000 of these, just you wait!"
>Never hear about it again

>>31760621
Think that's a theoretical rate of fire, I've heard their recoil dampers were basically destroyed after a single shot.

>>31760592
Cost of the rebuilding process however was much more than what it would have taken to just lay a new keel

>>31761881

Don't worry. This will end with the continuous and inevitable melting of the Arctic. It is too late to reverse the trend until the very end of the century. For the first time in its history, the Russian state will have wide ocean access.

>there are people on /k/ that don't know about the basic dichotomy in naval doctrine (projection vs denial, Mahan vs Corbett)