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

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

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

America attack Argentina? That would be a bigger bloodbath for American soldiers than Iraq. Argentina is Conquistadors, whitest country in Latin America.

 

[nahtanbob]

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

Do you know where Kaliningrad is?

View attachment 525740

Kaliningrad is the new name for Konisberg which was part of East Prussia

America attack Argentina? That would be a bigger bloodbath for American soldiers than Iraq. Argentina is Conquistadors, whitest country in Latin America.

a hypothetical scenario
in real life why would someone attack a bankrupt country like Argentina ?

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?

Hitler tried thousands of V-2s on United Kingdom. It didn't work
American aircraft carriers brought the war to the footsteps of Japan
without nukes you would have seen what carriers can do

 

[LeGenD]

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.

Cruise missiles are not a substitute for an aircraft carrier in a war. Cruise missiles follow a programmed path towards a specified target, but a single cruise missile is intended to engage a single target.

An aircraft carrier bring lot of firepower to the desired location; combat aircraft + AWACS + troops + helicopters.

Each combat aircraft can be used to engage multiple targets in a single sortie. And an aircraft carrier can host entire squadrons of combat aircraft.

Super Hornets can be equipped with Conformal Fuel tanks to enhance their strike range:

- and they can be armed with standoff munitions to strike at potential targets from afar.

Super Hornets are very capable fighters as well. Do not be under illusion that SU-30 SM are 'magic' birds. Russian systems have much hype but little substance in comparison to assets fielded by NATO on average.

USAF does have long-range ALCM in its inventory, and appropriate methods to deliver them (long-range bombers).

 

[prop558]

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.

Yes Japan lost Carriers in the Pacific War WW2, but against whom ?? Against submarines ?? against destroyers & firgates ?? against battleships or missile boats ??? ....Yes against None of them........... But they lost carriers against carriers.

 

[EpiiC]

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


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

Better than US/UK/French SSN? Sarcasm ?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

But they lost carriers against carriers.

Mostly to American submarines.

Cruise missiles are not a substitute for an aircraft carrier in a war. Cruise missiles follow a programmed path towards a specified target, but a single cruise missile is intended to engage a single target.

An aircraft carrier bring lot of firepower to the desired location; combat aircraft + AWACS + troops + helicopters.

Each combat aircraft can be used to engage multiple targets in a single sortie. And an aircraft carrier can host entire squadrons of combat aircraft.

Super Hornets can be equipped with Conformal Fuel tanks to enhance their strike range:

- and they can be armed with standoff munitions to strike at potential targets from afar.

Super Hornets are very capable fighters as well. Do not be under illusion that SU-30 SM are 'magic' birds. Russian systems have much hype but little substance in comparison to assets fielded by NATO on average.

USAF does have long-range ALCM in its inventory, and appropriate methods to deliver them (long-range bombers).

America will never fight Russia. Russia don't need carriers to fight Qaeda. Qaeda have nothing.

 

[Tshering22]

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

You mean to say invade everyone.

Your corporations rely on your military abilities to control different parts of the world.

Russians prefer a defensive approach.

The S-400 vs F-35B logic.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Better than US/UK/French SSN? Sarcasm ?

Obviously better than American, British, French SSN.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/yase...-deadly-attack-submarine-in-the-world.590639/

 

[Ultima Thule]

Better than US/UK/French SSN? Sarcasm ?

For @undertakerwwefan then Yes @EpiiC

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Hitler tried thousands of V-2s on United Kingdom. It didn't work

America never dared fight on Japan mainland. V-2 were so devastating it was the main reason for invasion of Europe.

 

[JohnWick]

America never dared fight on Japan mainland. V-2 were so devastating it was the main reason for invasion of Europe.

I thought V-2 and V-3 belong to Soviets.

 

[prop558]

Mostly to American submarines.



America will never fight Russia. Russia don't need carriers to fight Qaeda. Qaeda have nothing.

Dear Battle of Midway, Battle of Coral Sea both were fought between Carrier Groups of USA & Japan. US adopted more aggressive strategy, which let them to won.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Dear Battle of Midway, Battle of Coral Sea both were fought between Carrier Groups of USA & Japan. US adopted more aggressive strategy, which let them to won.

Americans had radars. Japan did not. Radar allowed Americans to locate Japanese fleet and planes. So Americans had advantage. Carriers are not needed to fight Qaeda. Russia don't need carriers, only subs that are armed with cruise missiles.

 

[prop558]

Had Pakistan have the Carrier in 1971, India could have never done the naval blockade of East Pakistan.

Carriers = Floating Airbase at the Sea which can even change its location

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Had Pakistan have the Carrier in 1971, India could have never done the naval blockade of East Pakistan.

Carriers = Floating Airbase at the Sea which can even change its location

Maybe. But carriers are vulnerable without adequate protection.