> Russia's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, began its first combat deployment to Syria with plenty of fanfare, but a recent report from IHS Jane's indicates Russia has given up entirely on launching strikes from the carrier.
> The Kuznetsov, never an entirely reliable system, had one of its MiG-29KRs crash in November, and another pilot had to eject after the Kuznetsov's landing gear failed and couldn't receive the aircraft, Jane's reports.
> Military analysts speculated before the deployment that the Kuznetsov added "nothing" to the battle, as Moscow already has a wealth of strike aircraft in Syria, and cruise missiles fired from the Russian navy ships stationed in the Mediterranean don't offer any significant advantages over the cheap, unguided bombs Russian planes freely drop in the uncontested airspace above Syria.
>unguided bombs Russian planes freely drop in the uncontested airspace above Syria what are you going to lock on to, dirt?
Parker Scott
Kuznetsov is a joke, that's true, and we're keeping her just in lack of better options: we can't afford losing experience in using and maintaining aircraft carriers, and as for now, we can't build a replacement, because the only wharf in the USSR that made them was left for dead in Ukraine. We almost failed restoration of the other carrier we had and sold to India as the restoration had to be carried out at a wharf not suited for this which resulted in breaking of all deadlines and quality of works so low that the Indians refused to accept the ship, I think, twice (and I do think they still regret about striking that deal).
We are still able to build nice modern small ships however.
Aaron Cooper
Kebab
Gavin Morris
>we can't afford losing experience in using and maintaining aircraft carriers >aircraft carriers
No. All you have now is the world's shittiest cruise ship.
Nathaniel Long
Awww, that hurt.
Jaxon Collins
Small ships are nice but not for military use. Now you're icebreakers. I wish we had some of those over here. A couple of years back when weather trapped a village in Alaska they had to hire a Russian icebreaker to clear the way for a delivery by ship.
Kayden Lewis
...
Matthew Gray
It still amazes me how people talk about China or Russia challenging the USA. No offence, their militaries are ofc sexond and third most powerful but the USA is sooo fucking far ahead. China and Russia can't project force beyond their borders, America can strike anywhere in less than 24 hours, it's not just that America is vastly superior technologically, but they have experience developing, using and improving their existent platforms. It's not just aircraft carrier or fighter jets, even anti missile systems and icbms.
Liam Mitchell
Why not building new wharfs? What is Russia even doing right now?
Jonathan Moore
Don't be mean to Russia. At least they have an air force :(
Austin Torres
In fact, there is a program of building new carriers by 2030 iirc but being no specialist in this area I don't know if it's realistic. Considering the current economic situation in Russia, probably not. But if you look at the progress we have made in upgrading our fleet with new frigates, corvettes and submarines for the past 5–10 years, you can see that we are actually doing something.
Juan Roberts
none of that means anything when nuclear bombs are involved you fucking buffoon.
Logan Long
We have 19 aircraft carriers. Our allies don't really need any so long as the Jews don't take back the USA.
Angel Jones
only 19 aircraft carriers in service in the entire world retard the u.s. has 10 carriers in service.
/k/-fag here. I'll explain that shit. Kuznetsov was designed only for ONE purpose - it's mobile aircraft coastal platform for Baltic fleet. That's it. It don't have to have nuclear reactor since maximum range of that shit was something like 1000 miles from base. It was built in late 80s when soviet generals still wanted to BTFO EU, so they needed cheap carrier for Baltic. Since 1970s there's LITERALLY NO REASONS to have carriers at all, because small fleet of missile corvettes can easily BTFO carrier group. And US cnow that. In any major war between NATO and Russia carrier groups would be mass graves, because it's pretty much easy to zerg-rush em with Onyx or Granit missiles, because now SM-3 have only 0.3 probability of interception of each missile.
Wyatt Gomez
Missile defense systems are a thing, and guess who's are better? I'll give you a hint, it's not Russia or China.
Brandon Anderson
>thinks the Jews will really order nuclear war
Retard the nukes are just there to keep civilians under control the militaries won't actually use them against another nuclear country
Robert Moore
>and guess who's are better? I'll give you a hint, it's not Russias
guaranteed replies
Brody Garcia
>missle deffese Just a meme. All you (and we) can intercept is just some SCUDs, nothing more. And SCUDs are some 60s shit, it's not maneuverable, not using electronic warfare. It's just a fucking rock with TNT inside.
Joseph Jones
Wow missile defense! When you intercept 20% of thousands of Russia's Mach-21 systems that will surely make a massive difference!
Robert Ortiz
That's pretty embarrassing if your pilot has to eject rather than land back on the carrier.
Aiden Hall
Yes. It's around 20 ships and 2 submarines. You know, now your military is much weaker that it used to be. You just throwing money away because your new (((Zumwalt)) class ships ar much MUCH worse that fucking Arleigh Burke. So let's stick with last one. It have SPY-class radars wich have 4 second ping (sic!), and only 2 channels per missile. Onyx-missiles have 3 Mach speed, works in sort-of-AI network (just neural network) and using electronic warfare. Since Nimiz-class carriers don't have armor or weapons at all, even one hit of that missile could be deadly for carrier. With probability of 0.3 of interception, you just don't have much time for interception of zerg-rush.
Lucas Perry
>Small ships are nice but not for military use. Which is why American carriers are escorted by at least five destroyers/cruisers and a couple submarines, right?
Ian Diaz
You will build 2 new 100 000t super carriers in 2020's. One for North and one for Pacific fleet.
>Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
>Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
>After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory.
Dominic Smith
Lol what Russia only has one aircraft carrier?
Remind me again why do we consider them a super power?
Justin Phillips
Don't worry desu, at least your ship has a nice name.
Jose Powell
it was obviously just a diversion
Nicholas Green
>be USA >host war games to develop new strategies and correct weaknesses >error.jpg >too much learning oh noes! >have faggot time LARPing instead
Aiden Gutierrez
Bakeries
Wyatt Reyes
Because they don't actually need carriers? For the price that you can build one aircraft carrier, they can build thousands of anti-ship missiles. Sorry but even just 50 missiles would beat a carrier every single time.
Jacob Wright
>van riper >usmc Nothing new
Tyler Powell
Yeah that's why we don't send the carriers by themselves you meme country.
Charles Anderson
Kek Good job Hans
Jackson Richardson
Welcome to the military-industrial complex, where the people making new weapons are the same people reviewing them.
Anti-ship is only one role. Carriers allow for rapid dynamic strikes in support of ground forces. Missiles have a much harder time doing that.
Josiah Ward
Don't worry, Mattis will put an end to that
Tyler Cook
This sounds like anti russian propaganda. Similar to everything we read in the US. Even with ruskibro cosigning it, I'm still suspicious.
Jason Rodriguez
>oh no we can't go to war with Russia >don't poke the sleeping bear Fuck Putin and Russia.
Jordan Richardson
Kuzya is a good ship, but very old. Our military industry was destroyed by perestroika and 90s we are basically rebuilding it from the ground up, nice as it is to have an aircraft carrier, industry required to maintain and build them is low priority. Remember our 3 main ports are so far from each other any real fleet attacking one of them will win. So the priority is air and land. Well that and subs, can never have enough subs.
Christian Powell
9 of wich are docked and 1 expected to arrive in port to be docked.
Josiah Bailey
> (((Military analysts))) speculated > Russia has given up Fuck off, cunt. We need it to protect our straits and peninsulas.
Isaac Kelly
I really admire your honesty.
Levi Gomez
Don't take it too hard. Your only aircraft carrier may be a joke, but you still have a great submarine game going. And at least your government isn't supporting al-Qaeda. It can always be worse my friend.
Isaac Jones
Why does it make so much smoke? Aren't these things nuclear?
Colton Bell
>watch western MSM >hurr Russia no accuracy >now see how accurate ours are! >shows russian bombing video West, west never changes
John Morgan
Whats the point in having a flight deck on that thing if it cant even launch planes?
Also why would the Ruski Command send it to Syria when you have a large all Russian military airport in Latakia?
William White
>Whats the point in having a flight deck on that thing if it cant even launch planes? Training >Also why would the Ruski Command send it to Syria when you have a large all Russian military airport in Latakia? They want to dock it in med.
Isaac Miller
The Russian navy doesn't have a good track record, even before the commies took over. The Japs wiped out the Russian fleet in WW1, At the start of WW2 Russia had more submarines than Germany but they were hardly used.
It has produced some innovative designs and is no where near as shit as some murricans would have you believe.
That said the US does have the best naval forces and would turn Russia and China's navy into target practice in a real war
Thomas Wright
...
Joseph Barnes
.
Eli Evans
>The Japs wiped out the Russian fleet in WW1 To be fair animemen attacked our ships in korean/chinese ports without war declaration. Around anime never relax.
John Phillips
...
Juan Johnson
Real testing dumbass
Cameron Russell
>technology demonstrator has problems Look, it's fucking nothing.
Jason Murphy
Why'd they even bother with it? Like it says, they have enough air capability in the area anyway.
if you're not Russian,Chinese or American you are not allowed to post in this thread
Joshua Price
b..b..but it has a ramp, user!
Aiden Robinson
The carrier isn't there for strikes against the Syrian rebels its there to stop NATO from gang fucking the Syrian government. Its next port will be Souchi and being used as leverage against Ukraine. Russian mentality is paranoid and defensive but practical.
Julian Fisher
>plenty of fanfare From butthurt westerners maybe. >"""uncontested airspace""" Yeah, sure. It's there with its interceptors and plenty of AA to make sure it stays that way.
Liam Collins
Impressive
Hunter Kelly
So does the latest British carrier
>anything goes wrong with the catapult on a US carrier it is literally no better than a tug boat
Easton Smith
Didnt some 200billion dollar zumwalt get towed the other day because it broke down.
When will you masonic kike slaves ever learn. You deserve your fate.
Ethan Lopez
top kek
James Parker
>Like it says, they have enough air capability in the area anyway. Obongo was threatening to bomb all airports in the zone. That way the Syrian government nor the Russian airforce could bomb their rebel friends.
Luke Robinson
>build aircraf carrier >don't have planes that can land or take off from it confusedanimegirlwithaninterrogationmark.jpg
Parker Thomas
The UK is buying 148 F35s
Colton Cook
It is not NATO they are worried about, it is Israel.
Jews were thinking about about out flaking the Russian air defences in Syria
Dominic Gonzalez
Russia's got a mediocre navy, robust but simple air force, but it's army is up to date, if not now competeting heavily with the united states.
>Anti-missile systems That's false though, Russia's got some really good air defense capabilities.
Josiah Jones
>aircraft carrier >on Baltic sea
Anthony Jones
Nice of you to forget about Aegis.
Justin Torres
thats great and all but todays processing power quite possibly allows the handling of all these missles
Nathaniel Robinson
Yeah I thought this was the case but then why is Britain building 2 new carriers?
Are these just for threatening small shitty countries in Africa etc? Not for engaging big enemies at all.
>Yeah I thought this was the case but then why is Britain building 2 new carriers? 1) Carrier are still great against "natives" in ME and Africa. 2) Same reason china once build a fuck off wall that never defended anyone against anything. Someone's making craptonne of cash off of it.
Ryder Morgan
Nah russias missile capabilities are better than ours, we've just invested in anti-missile shit.
Ayden Reyes
It's the one hiding in the background that you should be worried about m8.
Kevin Thompson
something looks wrong with that photo
John Adams
> Muh shipwreck missiles tho
You do know that US carrier groups completely outrange anything the USSR had to offer, right?
Hunter Wood
Wrong. Quantity =/= quality.
Levi Smith
>You do know that US carrier groups completely outrange anything the USSR had to offer, right? You do know that for last 15 years while US was developing ways to stop missiles, we were developing ways to make sure they can't. Offense is both cheaper and easier to develop.
Brandon Hall
They ran the sim once, learned what they had to, then reran it scripted for press/morale reasons. Our military is 100% volunteer so image is very important or no one will join up. Not like they ignored the results and just said "welp we are as great as we though, good job boys"
Joseph Roberts
>Quantity =/= quality. Agreed. And with that - we still have both better missile and anti-missile tech than US.
Jackson Green
>Kuznetsov was designed only for ONE purpose - it's mobile aircraft coastal platform for Baltic fleet. GTFO out of here. Carriers built for power projection? What a revelation!!
>It don't have to have nuclear reactor since maximum range of that shit was something like 1000 miles from base. More like Russia didn't have the money for it.
>Since 1970s there's LITERALLY NO REASONS to have carriers at all, because small fleet of missile corvettes can easily BTFO carrier group. And modern times countries like China and UK are adding new carriers to their fleets because there are no reasons at all.
>because small fleet of missile corvettes can easily BTFO carrier group. This is why carriers sail with escorts. Heard of the Aegis Defense System?
>muh missile spam muh laser point defense systems
>In any major war between NATO and Russia carrier groups would be mass graves, because it's pretty much easy to zerg-rush em with Onyx or Granit missiles, because now SM-3 have only 0.3 probability of interception of each missile. Doubtful that the carriers would come in range of anything Russia can throw at them.
Jose King
Kek. Is that why Russia gets so buttmad whenever US talks about THAAD deployments near them?
Oliver Wood
Wars are won by cheap, but solid things, not expensive pieces of art.
Camden Hernandez
So much idiocy in one post, astounishing!
I just have to ask - is that a troll bait, or you are genuinely this retarded and ignorant?
Brody Watson
>The nip gets it
Robert Cooper
>Janes >Yahoo News
kek
Bentley Robinson
Russia is a joke of a country
Brody Diaz
Tell that to Saddam Hussein's Army in 1990.
Jace Powell
I just know more than you.
Jacob Brown
There are actual planes on the ships. Fake obviously.
The last 15 years you tried everything to make sure your navy doesn't disintegrate completely.
Joseph Price
>Doubtful that the carriers would come in range of anything Russia can throw at them. Range of aircraft deployment is by far lower than missile range
>Kek. Is that why Russia gets so buttmad whenever US talks about THAAD deployments near them? Nah, that's cause those systems can be used for offence too.
Jonathan Collins
Still salty about eastern A Leppo, burger?
Brody Brown
what's wrong with having a ramp? seems safer for takeoff explain
Wyatt Johnson
We just moved Iskanders to Kaliningrad, so its ok.
Thanks for proving my point though - US "cutting age" weaponry is Outdated shit thats inferiour to even our S-300. (Meanwhile we have S-500).
The real reason why it was issue was that launchers could be used to have offencive missiles installed there instead, which is violation of security.
Aiden Jones
>The Japs wiped out the Russian fleet in WW1, Great knowledge of history there, and the saddest is, this was posted some 1.5 hours ago, and nobody noticed this nonsense.
(Just for clarity: they sure did, only it happened some 10 years before WWI. And in WWI, Russia and Japan were actually allied.
Ian Moore
Why did US got so buttmad about some inferior missiles on Cuba?
