Russia don't need to build aircraft carrier. Yasen attack submarine is armed with Kalibr land attack

[Dash]

One single cruise missile costs upward of 2 million, precision bombing by fighters are much more economical.

Any thread opened by this chap is only for comedy.......

 

[prop558]

Carriers are always important dor the Navies. China & Russia must have Aircraft Carriers to meet US potential threat

 

[Beast]

Russia is a huge country. It spans from Japan on one end to Germany on the other. This helps it to project power even without an aircraft carrier.

What happen if Argentina decide to show finger to Russia?

 

[HalfMoon]

What happen if Argentina decide to show finger to Russia?

If Russia were to be in Argentina, Cuba or Syria etc., it is to protect those countries. If they decide to push Russia out, it is their lose. Russia has noting to lose. What Russia cares is North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, East North Pacific/ East China Sea. You do not need aircraft carriers for these waters.

 

[Beast]

If Russia were to be in Argentina, Cuba or Syria etc., it is to protect those countries. If they decide to push Russia out, it is their lose. Russia has noting to lose. What Russia cares is North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, East North Pacific/ East China Sea. You do not need aircraft carriers for these waters.

It need aircraft carrier. Submarine cant project airspace power for its fleet.

 

[HalfMoon]

It need aircraft carrier. Submarine cant project airspace power for its fleet.

When it has its own bases why do they need aircraft carriers?

Do you know where Kaliningrad is?

 

[Beast]

When it has its own bases why do they need aircraft carriers?

Do you know where Kaliningrad is?

View attachment 525740

I am talkin about project air power in South American continent if needed...

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Aircraft carriers allow you to win wars against distant adversaries
attack subs do not accomplish it

These days navy warfare is littoral warfare against bad people who are poorly armed and poorly equipped. Attack subs can strike thousands of km inland from the coast using land attack cruise missiles. These are safer to use than planes, which can have accidents and endanger lives of pilots.

One single cruise missile costs upward of 2 million, precision bombing by fighters are much more economical.

Jet fuel is expensive. Rather than having planes taking off and land constantly and servicing the planes, cruise missiles fired from attack subs get it done quickly, efficiently, safely.

What happen if Argentina decide to show finger to Russia?

Yasen would creep up 60 km off the coast of Argentina and lob Kalibr land attack cruise missiles all over Argentina and force Argentina to surrender?

It need aircraft carrier. Submarine cant project airspace power for its fleet.

Submarines are far scarier to weaker countries than aircraft carriers. You don't know where they are. You can hear Super Hornet coming from miles away and take cover. When you get hit by cruise missiles, you don't know what hit you. Yasen sub is far scarier than George Bush carrier.

I am talkin about project air power in South American continent if needed...

The objective of carrier fighters is to shoot missiles. You can do that with a sub. 1. There is no warning to the enemy when missile hits. 2. No danger to pilots. 3. Psychological fear to the enemy.

When it has its own bases why do they need aircraft carriers?

Do you know where Kaliningrad is?

View attachment 525740

Most land is within 2000 km of the coast. Yasen's Kalibr cruise missiles can strike just about any land target in the world from the coast.

 

[prop558]

When it has its own bases why do they need aircraft carriers?

Do you know where Kaliningrad is?

View attachment 525740

Russians can put the Carrier in the Pacific

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Russians can put the Carrier in the Pacific

What for? No one cares about the middle of the ocean. 80% of the world's population lives within 100 km of the coast. You control the coast, you win the war. That's why you don't need carriers to control the coast. Attack subs are far scarier. They can hit any populated target from off the coast with cruise missiles.

 

[prop558]

What for? No one cares about the middle of the ocean. 80% of the world's population lives within 100 km of the coast. You control the coast, you win the war. That's why you don't need carriers to control the coast. Attack subs are far scarier. They can hit any populated target from off the coast with cruise missiles.

Dear you can't control the seas without having carriers. WW2, 1971, 1965, Gulf War, Korean War all are the examples. If you have any objection, i can elaborate each of them.

Had Pakistan have the Carriers, Indian would have never even imagine to do Naval blockade of Pakistan when it did in 1971.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Dear you can't control the seas without having carriers. WW2, 1971, 1965, Gulf War, Korean War all are the examples. If you have any objection, i can elaborate each of them.

Had Pakistan have the Carriers, Indian would have never even imagine to do Naval blockade of Pakistan when it did in 1971.

Nop. Carriers started in the 1920s. Back then there were no cruise missiles. Now there are cruise missiles. When America, Britain, France attacked Syria a few months ago they used cruise missiles not carriers.

Had Pakistan have the Carriers, Indian would have never even imagine to do Naval blockade of Pakistan when it did in 1971.

Possibly but very risky. Britain almost lost its carrier in Falklands war. Against strong enemy carriers don't work.

 

[nahtanbob]

One does not need an AC to compete with US navy. One only needs a weapon that could kill a US AC battle group. Rest is easy game.

When the weapon exists let me know. Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles do not work

Nop. Carriers started in the 1920s. Back then there were no cruise missiles. Now there are cruise missiles. When America, Britain, France attacked Syria a few months ago they used cruise missiles not carriers.



Possibly but very risky. Britain almost lost its carrier in Falklands war. Against strong enemy carriers don't work.

when you have 10 carrier groups you can lose a couple and still win the war

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

when you have 10 carrier groups you can lose a couple and still win the war

Japan lost 20 carriers in WW2.

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

Russia use cruise missile ships and subs. Gets the job done without risking pilots and ship crew.

 

[nahtanbob]

If Russia were to be in Argentina, Cuba or Syria etc., it is to protect those countries. If they decide to push Russia out, it is their lose. Russia has noting to lose. What Russia cares is North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, East North Pacific/ East China Sea. You do not need aircraft carriers for these waters.

Can Russia protect Argentina from American attack without resorting to nuclear war ? that is precisely why you need aircraft carriers

Japan lost 20 carriers in WW2.

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

Russia use cruise missile ships and subs. No need to risk pilots and ship crew.

Japanese lost 20 carriers because they were fighting a superior navy. Germans did not have a prayer at the sea against Allied Navy