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

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

cruise missiles range 2,500 km which is more than Super Hornet's combat radius which cannot carry Tomahawk + Russia navy already has Su-30 SM which are better than Super Hornet at providing air cover for marines constructing coastal air bases. So even though Russia has about 200 billion USD trade surplus annually, they don't need to build an aircraft carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Naval_Aviation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gren-class_landing_ship

Russia's trade surplus rose 65.5 percent year on year to 170.8 billion US dollars in the first 10 months of this year, the Federal Customs Service of Russia said Friday.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1130860.shtml

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

@pakistanipower @vostok

 

[Ultima Thule]

@pakistanipower @vostok

Yes you're right they have different philosophy than western/US Navies @undertakerwwefan

@pakistanipower @vostok

Yasen is among the best subs in the world @undertakerwwefan better than US/UK/French SSN @undertakerwwefan

 

[nahtanbob]

Russia could not build and operate an aircraft carrier to compete with the US Navy
it is that simple.

the focus on submarines is to mask the lack of naval aviation

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Russia could not build and operate an aircraft carrier to compete with the US Navy
it is that simple.

the focus on submarines is to mask the lack of naval aviation

Aircraft carrier is vulnerable and expensive to service. Attack submarines theses days are armed with land attack cruise missiles range thousands of km. Super Hornet can only strike about 700 km inland. Attack submarines can strike inland much further than Super Hornet can.

Russia could not build and operate an aircraft carrier to compete with the US Navy
it is that simple.

the focus on submarines is to mask the lack of naval aviation

Russia navy has Su-30 SM much bigger than Super Hornet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Naval_Aviation

 

[nahtanbob]

Aircraft carrier is vulnerable and expensive to service. Attack submarines theses days are armed with land attack cruise missiles range thousands of km. Super Hornet can only strike about 700 km inland. Attack submarines can strike inland much further than Super Hornet can.



Russia navy has Su-30 SM much bigger than Super Hornet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Naval_Aviation

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

B-52s are larger than Su-30s. so what ? can it operate off a deck of aircraft carrier ?

 

[HalfMoon]

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

B-52s are larger than Su-30s. so what ? can it operate off a deck of aircraft carrier ?

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.

 

[nahtanbob]

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.

Russia cannot project power against Africa or most of Middle East, Indian Ocean region, SE Asia, Latin America
USA is not exactly puny. I am counting American bases in Europe, Japan and Middle East.

Like it or not Americans wrote the book on 20th century power projection

 

[Skull and Bones]

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

 

[War Thunder]

Russia could not build and operate an aircraft carrier to compete with the US Navy
it is that simple.

the focus on submarines is to mask the lack of naval aviation

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.
And thanks to the advancements in cruise missile precision and range, and the same for anti air assets, you don't really need to be flying aircraft out of a ship anymore anyway.
It's called moving with the future instead of being stuck at what worked back in the World War II.

 

[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.
And thanks to the advancements in cruise missile precision and range, and the same for anti air assets, you don't really need to be flying aircraft out of a ship anymore anyway.
It's called moving with the future instead of being stuck at what worked back in the World War II.

even if you beat American aircraft carriers you cannot defeat the US Navy. American submarine fleet is the best in the world

 

[War Thunder]

even if you beat American aircraft carriers you cannot defeat the US Navy. American submarine fleet is the best in the world

says no one but the US.
US marines are also supposed to be the best in the world, except they haven't been able to win a war for pentagon through the history of their existence.
Except the only time US decided to nuke a nation into submission, while the Russians having done most of the fighting and winning.

 

[nahtanbob]

says no one but the US.
US marines are also supposed to be the best in the world, except they haven't been able to win a war for pentagon through the history of their existence.
Except the only time US decided to nuke a nation into submission, while the Russians having done most of the fighting and winning.

Soviet Union would lose a war to Germany one on one. British and American help was too critical.

IMO the 200,000 plus Studebaker trucks supplied to Soviet Union during world war 2 were useful. they were reliable and allowed Soviets to transport large amounts of troops and materials to areas where germans couldn't. germans were dependent on railroads for transports.

USA has the fortune of being separated by geography. the marines did liberate islands in the pacific - the island hopping was bloody business

 

[War Thunder]

Soviet Union would lose a war to Germany one on one. British and American help was too critical.

IMO the 200,000 plus Studebaker trucks supplied to Soviet Union during world war 2 were useful. they were reliable and allowed Soviets to transport large amounts of troops and materials to areas where germans couldn't. germans were dependent on railroads for transports.

USA has the fortune of being separated by geography. the marines did liberate islands in the pacific - the island hopping was bloody business

Well yes, they would but still they did better in putting up a fight compared to what the rest of the Europe did till the alarms were ringing all over the United Kingdom.

And yes marines did liberate the Pacific Islands, but it had more to do with over stretching of the limited resources and manpower of the Empire of Japan, and not much to do with their inability to fight better. Or any ingenuity on the part of the marines apart from having the resources to throw in.

 

[nahtanbob]

Well yes, they would but still they did better in putting up a fight compared to what the rest of the Europe did till the alarms were ringing all over the United Kingdom.

if hitler treated the russians and ukranians the way he treated the french and dutch stalin would be history
it is not hard to motivate russians to fight when the alternative is extermination of everyone you know. i give uncle joe a lot of credit