The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Is There a Future for Russian Aircraft Carriers?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Is there a future for Russian aircraft carriers?

Those following the news from Russia have probably heard that Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (official name: Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), was put into dry dock for major repairs and retrofits. Things did not go well. First, the dry dock sank (it was Russia’s biggest) and then a huge crane came crashing down on the deck. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship killing 2 and injuring more. With each setback, many observers questioned the wisdom of pouring huge sums of money into additional repairs when just the scheduled ones would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time.

Actually, the damage from the fire was not as bad as expected. The damage from the crane was, well, manageable. But the loss of the only huge floating dry dock is a real issue: the Kuznetsov cannot be repaired elsewhere and these docks cost a fortune.

But that is not the real problem.

The real problem is that there are major doubts amongst Russian specialists as to whether Russia needs ANY aircraft carriers at all.

How did we get here?

A quick look into the past

During the Soviet era, US aircraft carriers were (correctly) seen as an instrument of imperial aggression. Since the USSR was supposed to be peaceful (which, compared to the US she was, compared to Lichtenstein, maybe less so) why would she need aircraft carriers? Furthermore, it is illegal to transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus with an aircraft carrier and yet the only shipyard in the USSR which could built such a huge ship was in Nikolaev, on the Black Sea. Finally, the Soviets were acutely aware of how vulnerable US aircraft carriers are to missile attacks, so why built such an expensive target, especially considering that the Soviet Union had no AWACS (only comparatively slow, small and much less capable early warning helicopters) and no equivalents to the F-14/F-18 (only the frankly disappointing and short range Yak-38s which would be very easy prey for US aircraft).

Eventually, the Soviets did solve these issues, somewhat. First, they created a new class of warship, the “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: under the flight deck, these Soviet aircraft carriers also held powerful anti-ship missiles (however, this was done at the cost of capacity under the deck: a smaller wing and smaller stores). Now, they could legally exit the Black Sea. Next, they designed a very different main mission for their “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: to extend the range of Russian air defenses, especially around so called “bastion” areas where Russian SSBNs used to patrol (near the Russian shores, say the Sea of Okhotsk or the northern Seas). So while the Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser were protecting Russian subs, they themselves were protected by shore based naval aviation assets. Finally, they created special naval variants for their formidable MiG-29s and Su-27s. As for the AWACS problem, they did nothing about it at all (besides some plans on paper). The collapse of the USSR only made things worse.

The Soviets also had plans for a bigger, nuclear, aircraft carriers, and on paper they looked credible, but they never made it into production. These supposed “super carriers” would also come with a truly “super” price…

So how good was/is the Kuznetsov?

Well, we will probably never find out. What is certain, however, is that she is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers, even their old ones, and that the US has always been so far ahead of the USSR or Russia in terms of carriers and carrier aviation that catching up was never a viable option, especially not when so many truly urgent programs needed major funding. Did the Kuznetsov extend the range of Russian air defenses? Yes, but this begs the question of identity of the “likely adversary”. Not the US: attacking Russian SSBNs would mean total war, and the U.S. would be obliterated in a few short hours (as would Russia). I don’t see any scenario in which US ASuW/ASW assets would be looking for Russian SSBNs anywhere near the Russian coasts anyway, this would be suicidal. What about smaller countries? This is were the rationalizations become really silly. One Russian (pretend) specialist even suggested the following scenario: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt takes power, thousands of Russian tourists are arrested and the Islamists demand that Russia give full sovereignty over to all Muslim regions of Russia, if not: then hundreds of Russians will get their throats slit on Egyptian TV. Can you guess how an aircraft carrier would help in this situation?

Well, according to this nutcase, the Russian carrier would position itself off the Egyptian coast, then the Russians would send their (pretty small!) air-wing to “suppress Egyptian air defenses” and then the entire Pskov Airborne Division would be somehow (how?!?!?!) be airlifted to Egypt to deal with the Ikhwan and free the Russian hostages.

It makes me wonder what this specialist was smoking!

ORDER IT NOW

Not only does it appear that the Egyptians are currently in negotiations with Moscow to acquire 24+ brand new Su-35s (which can eat the Russian airborne aircraft for breakfast and remain hungry for more), but even without these advanced multi-role & air superiority fighters the rest of the Egyptian air defenses would be a formidable threat for the relatively old and small (approx.: 18x Su-33; 6x MiG-29K; 4x Ka-31; 2x Ka-27) Russian airwing. As for airlifting the entire 76th Guards Air Assault Division – Russia simply does not have the kind of transport capabilities to allow it to do that (not to mention that Airborne/Air Assault divisions are NOT trained to wage a major counterinsurgency war by themselves, in a large and distant country). Theories like these smack more of some Russian version of a Hollywood film than of the plans of the General Staff of Russia.

Back to the real world now

Frankly, the Kuznetsov was a pretty decent ship, especially considering its rather controversial design and the appalling lack of maintenance. She did play an important role in Syria, not thanks to her airwing, but to her powerful radars. But now, I think that it is time to let the Kuznetsov sail into history: pouring more money in this clearly antiquated ship makes no sense whatsoever.

What about new, modern, aircraft carriers?

The short answer is: how can I declare that the USN has no rational use left for its aircraft carriers and also say that the Russian case is different and that Russia does need one or perhaps several such carriers? The USN is still several decades ahead of modern Russia in carrier operations, and (relatively) poor and (comparatively) backward Russia (in naval terms) is going to do better? I don’t think so.

Then, there is one argument which, in my opinion, is completely overlooked: while it is probably true that a future naval version of the Su-57s (Su-57K?) would be more than a match for any US aircraft, including the flying brick also knows as F-35, Russia STILL has nothing close to the aging but still very effective carrier-capable USN Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Yes, Russians have excellent radars and excellent airframes, but it is one thing to have the basic capabilities and quite another to effectively integrate them. As always, for Russia, there is the issue of cost. Would it make sense to finance an entire line of extremely costly aircraft for one (or even a few) aircraft carriers?

We need to keep in mind that while Russia leads the world in missile technology (including anti-shipping missiles!), there are many countries nowadays who have rather powerful anti-ship missiles too, and not all are so friendly to Russia (some may be at present, but might change their stance in the future). Unless Russia makes a major move to dramatically beef-up her current capabilities to protect a high-value and very vulnerable target like a hypothetical future aircraft carrier, she will face the exact same risks as all other countries with aircraft carriers currently do.

A quick look into the future

Hypersonic and long range missiles have changed the face of naval warfare forever and they have made aircraft carriers pretty much obsolete: if even during the Cold War the top of the line U.S. carriers were “sitting ducks”, imagine what any carrier is today? The old saying, “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind. Furthermore, what Russia needs most today are, in my opinion, more multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN (like the Yasen), more diesel-electric attack submarines SSK (like the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), more advanced patrol boats/frigates (like the Admiral Kasatonov), more small missile ships/corvettes (like the Karakurt), more large assault ships (like the Petr Morgunov) and many, many, more.

As for aircraft carriers, they are not needed any more to extend the (already formidable) Russian air defenses and in the power-projection role (operations far from Russia), the Russian Navy does not have the capabilities to protect any carrier far away from home shores.

Which leaves only three possible roles:

1) “Showing the flag”, i.e. make port calls to show that Russia is as “strong” and “advanced” as the US Navy. Two problems with that: i) the USN is decades ahead of Russia in carrier operations and 2) there are MUCH cheaper way to show your muscle (the Tu-160 does a great job of that).

2) “Retaining the carrier know-how”. But for what purpose? What naval strategy? What mission? Russia is the nation that made aircraft carriers obsolete – why should she ignore her own force planning triumphs?

3) Prestige and $$$ allocation to select individuals and organizations within and next to the Russian Navy. Since Russia does not have a money-printing-press or criminally bloated budgets, she simply cannot afford the capital outlay either for the Russian Navy, or for the nation of Russia, just to fill the pockets of some interested parties.

Conclusion:

If I have missed something, please correct me. I don’t see any role for carriers in the future Russian Navy. That is not to say that I am sure that they won’t be built (there are constant rumors about future Russian “super” carriers, no less!), but if they are built, I believe that it will be for all the wrong reasons.

The plight of the Kuznetsov might be blessing for Russia. She was a good ship (all in all), but now she should be viewed as an object lesson to (hopefully) kill any plans to build more carriers for the Russian Navy.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Aircraft Carriers, Russia 
Hide 165 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Giuseppe says:

    …how can I declare that the USN has no rational use left for its aircraft carriers and also say that the Russian case is different and that Russia does need one or perhaps several such carriers?

    You make a strong case that the Admiral Kuznetsov has been made an anachronism by Russia’s own advanced weapons systems. I fear the neo-con Russophobes that run the US and its military will simply interpret the disaster in the dry dock as a comedy. They view Russia simultaneously as a threat and as a backward joke, and this cognitive dissonance greatly increases the possibility of nuclear war because of the intentional disbelief in what Russian weapons can really do. So despite the vaunted greatest military in the world, we are made less safe by the posturing, lies, venality and inability to come to terms with reality. It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in charge, they all suffer from the same collective psychosis; what can any of the rest of us do to stay safe beyond relocate to the Southern Hemisphere?

  2. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Aircraft carriers were great and effective 75 years ago against Japan and perhaps in the Korean war. Today, they are obsolete hulking targets that can be taken out by who knows how many different types of missiles possessed by even militarily insignificant nations. Aircraft carriers are great for creating shipbuilding jobs and support work positions for blacks in the ports that they are based at, but are as effective and relevant today as the Dreadnaught and the Battleship. They had their times but we must move on realizing the air wars of the future will be fought with pilotless planes, missiles and space-based-lasers. There will be a few areas where planes with pilots might be needed in the future but these roles will mostly be filled by helicopters that can land on much smaller ships. One area that surprises me that hasn’t been much development in is the idea of carrying helicopters and planes on submarines. Picture a large submarine designed to have a flight deck open up once it’s surfaced. This flight deck could be designed to fold back into the submarine within a few minutes and be underwater quickly. The Japanese had submarines that carried small planes 75 years ago so with modern technology imagine what could be achieved?

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/world-war-ii-secret-behold-japans-underwater-aircraft-carriers-50037

    • Replies: @JVC
  3. A123 says:

    Geography has a great deal to do with it:

    –Russia has land bases that provide military air access to essentially all of the hot spots that relate to its national interests. Med, Baltic & Pacific.
    — The U.S. has poor land based options for reaching critical areas of the Med and Indian Ocean. Using bases hosted by foreign nations can be unreliable. For example, the U.S. would be foolish to rely on Erdogan.

    Also, the cost is not just carrier plus aircraft. Defenses can stop modern weapons, but doing so requires significant advance warning. A substantial number of picket and support ships are required to compose a task force that can protect the carrier, doubling or tripling the expense.
    ____

    Russia’s unique 11 time zone geography, allows them to do without expensive naval task forces. Countries such as China and the U.S. face a very different calculation for strategic cost/value.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @MLK
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    In a 1982 Congressional hearing, legislators asked Admiral Rickover how long American aircraft carriers would survive an actual war. His response: “Forty-eight hours”!

    • Replies: @Realist
  5. Svevlad says:

    Well, Russia needs no navy. At least at the current time, you never know what the future can bring.

    Why? Invading from the black sea? Oooh the black sea is a natural choke point. With minimal effort every single goddamn hostile ship is deleted with missiles. An aircraft carrier there would be like cracking an egg with a jackhammer.

    Similar applies to the Baltic, except it’s also like a funnel – everyone must go to Petrograd (russia really should degermanize these names, they sounds ridiculous in russian) anyway, so it’s of course gonna be defended as hell.

    Then, we have 2 “open” seas – the Pacific, and the Arctic. Invading from both is insane and would destroy logistics of even a hypothetical “statemaxxed” US (US without all the bullshit going on and with a fully fulfilled potential)

    If I have to guess, the best strategy would be drone carriers – much smaller and cheaper to make, much faster. Icebreaker versions possible for winter and arctic operations.

    Attacked? Simply release a swarm of small drones like the ones used for the attack on the Saudi oil field

    • Replies: @Marshal Marlow
  6. JVC says:
    @anonymous

    I tend to agree–it does seem that the pentagon is great at preparing for the last war, hence the recent discussion about tanks. Tanks will not have much effect, much less win the next war. Aircraft carriers have always been a tool of aggression, and as there is only one true aggressor in the current world, let them sink more and more money into boondoggle ships (where is that darn elevator???) Russia would be much better off spending it’s limited funds on the new defensive systems it has been developing, and making sure as many supersonic missiles, gliders, and unmanned submersibles are deployed soon –just in case the crazies in the basement actually find a way to start that major war they have been after for the past 25 years or so.

    • Agree: Realist
  7. Anonymous[607] • Disclaimer says:

    “Well, Russia needs no navy”

    I vote this the dumbest comment 2019!

  8. The purpose of an airplane is to deliver ordnance to a target. We used to need humans riding in the things to make this possible. This is no longer the case, so both aircraft and aircraft carriers are obsolete – except perhaps for heavy drones capable of delivering the bigger bombs.

  9. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship

    The fire danger has been completely solved.

  10. Biff says:

    Furthermore, it is illegal to transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus with an aircraft carrier

    ?Why is this so?

    • Replies: @Marshal Marlow
  11. @Svevlad

    I agree with the drones strategy for defence. However, I wouldn’t have a carrier. Instead, I’d pre-position hundreds/thousands at sea with neutral buoyancy about 50m below the surface with a tiny wispy antenna array floating on the surface to receive instructions.

    Once awoken, the flying drones would be shot to the surface using compressed air with enough force to launch them. A small rocket would boost them to flight speed and then the main engines would takeover.

    There could also be torpedo versions and simple old-fashioned mines – more akin to WW2.

    Equipped with AI smarts, drone could do enough basic evasion to make interception a challenge in the time available between a nearby launch and impact.

    Any nation would happily trade a few hundred drones to mission-kill a carrier. Plus, if a carrier is mission-killed, the entire battle group needs to stay to protect it and eventually escort it back home.

  12. @Biff

    There’s a long standing treaty that limits the tonnage of warships allowed to transit the Bosphorus – all carriers exceed the tonnage limit, so they’re not allowed to transit. The treaty is a bit antiquated because it also has restrictions limiting ships with large gun calibres etc, but no one uses big guns anymore – its all about missiles now.

    • Replies: @Carlo
  13. @Giuseppe

    They view Russia simultaneously as a threat and as a backward joke, and this cognitive dissonance greatly increases the possibility of nuclear war because of the intentional disbelief in what Russian weapons can really do.

    You appear to take the neocons’ public pronouncements at face value.

    Before presenting the core argument why that’s a mistake, let me start be making it really clear that I want Western society t0 rid itself of their influence – whether by shunning, expulsion, execution, or some combination… ça m’est égal .

    I don’t want them gone because of their obvious (((ethnocultural))) biases; nor because their infiltration of Western political systems is hostile to Enlightenment values; nor because their diversion of resources to cronies is sand in the gears of economic progress.

    Those three characteristics are bad enough, but if that was the sum total of their malign influence, then Western culture could survive it and still thrive: such is the raw power of free enterprise (even when it is hobbled by government interference in, and theft from, the ~60% of Weestern economies that comprise the genuine, productive, free-enterprise sector).

    The neocons have to go – literally to be extirpated if that’s what it takes – because they are parasitoids (which differ from parasites in that parasitoids invariably kill the host).

    Throughout history, their ilk has been routinely identified whenever it has emerged; it has been recognised as a malignant cancer on society.

    Sadly, it has been conflated with ‘Jewishness’ for almost 3 millennia – to the detriment of the vast bulk of Jews, who play no real role in the malign influence of the parasitoids and get very little benefit from the parasitoids’ doings.

    .

    Now… with that as context: why is it wrong to assume that they are miscalculating, and that their error might result in Western involvement in some action that makes life in the West less safe?

    First: it is a bad strategy to take what they say at face value. Assuming that they are being honest .

    Their grift depends – critically – on the perception that there is some common enemy that poses an existential threat to the West.

    That has a couple of major benefits: attention is diverted from the grift and the perpetrators are instead tasked with advising power how to ameliorate the risk. The parasitoid thrives.

    Second: they are not idiots – collectively, they are in the cognitive top 2-5% of the herd. That is to say, good enough to get into graduate programs at genuinely élite tertiary institutions, but not good enough to get there on raw merit – and certainly not good enough to get an ‘all comers’ merit-based scholarship. Still much much smarter than the herd.

    Collectively, they’re in that IQ sweet-spot for sociopaths: 125-130.

    When people in that range turn their full attention to a problem, they are capable of properly evaluating things[1].

    Let’s stipulate that the neocons are not dilettantes when it comes to geopolitics: it’s their core ‘thing’. If geopolitics just was some sideline of theirs, then a group of minds that is collectively the top 2-5% would not suffice, and fuckups like those you mention would be common.

    But geopolitics is not a sideline for them… it’s their main focus.

    .

    Third: they’re still around – they have no expectation of anything going even slightly awry in the foreseeable future.

    inb4 But Hitler took the majority of Jews by surprise!: forget the majority, who were not (and are not, and are never) parasitoids. Focus instead on the actual Parasitoid Fraction… when shit started to get real in the 1930s and 40s, those folks bought their way out well before shit got concentration-camp-y.

    The “JQ” is – and has always been – a misidentification of the “PQ” (Parasitoid Question).

    It is probably true that the exceptionalism inherent in Jewish doctrine influences the part of the Parasitoid Fraction who happen to be Jewish: it teaches them – quite explicitly – that there is no sanction from within their community, so long as they direct their tendencies outwards.

    In the GoyPop, parasitoids are only protected if they manage to get into relatively senior positions in politics (including the bureaucracy) or organised religion before they ‘de-cloak’ their tendencies. (In the corporate world the parasitoid’s relative lack of cognitive grunt is a barrier to success: they simply don’t get into positions where they can get away with shit. Evidence: name an obviously-sociopathic CEO who is also a gentile… compare that to the number of gentile sociopath politicians, bureaucrats and clergy).

    This is not as abstruse as it seems.

    Even if there is no additional prevalence of parasitoid tendencies among Jews than in the GoyPop, the absence of community sanction for outwardly-directed parasitoid behaviour means that every parasitoid Jew behaves like a senior politician, bureaucrat or clergyman… i.e., entitled, dishonest, corrupt and corruption-suborning.

    [1] One of the big category errors that people make, is thinking that a +2.5σ individual can enter any field of moderate complexity and instantly outperform a +[1.5,2]σ individual who has been immersed in the field his entire career. The 1.5σ guy will be intimately familiar with detail that is a priori unknowable to the +2.5σ.

    If the 2.5σ guy settles in, he will overtake everyone below him in due course – unless the realisation that The Cake Is a Lie arrives first. If that happens, Mr +2.5σ will realise that he misidentified the game, whereupon the decision to continue will be based on his personal connection with the (now-understood) grift.

    Grifters with that level of cognitive grunt are much rarer than is assumed – because that last half-σ is when real introspection arrives.

    (“+kσ” means someone whose position in a rank ordering based on cognitive prowess is k standard deviations above the mean. +1.5σ is roughly the 93rd percentile; +2σ is the 97.5th percentile; +2.5σ is roughly the 99.4th percentile)

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Mefobills
  14. would China not want to buy this carrier?

    • Replies: @Realist
  15. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Giuseppe

    What mission?

    Mopping up after the initial strike/counter-strike. In this scenario, there should be a nice, new, fully equipped aircraft carrier hidden deeply withing a cave until it is appropriate to bring it out.

  16. Realist says:

    The only use for aircraft carriers is to afford hegemony against lesser countries. Aircraft carriers are of no use against the US, Russia, China and probably Iran. Russia and China should save their money and use it for something of value, like research.

    • Replies: @A123
  17. Realist says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Admiral Rickover was way over confident.

  18. A123 says:
    @Realist

    The only use for aircraft carriers is to afford hegemony against lesser countries

    LOL! There are many, more practical uses. For example:

    China consumes a huge amount of hydrocarbons from the Persian Gulf. The ability to use carrier based aircraft to search for and intercept “dark” tankers and supertankers gives the U.S. a strategic capability that the Chinese cannot answer directly and Iran cannot answer at all. Operating in the mid to southern portion of the Indian Ocean would force China to approach in limited numbers from a predictable arc.

    — Are the new Chinese weapons dangerous. Yes. Are they unstoppable. No.
    — Can the U.S. stop the PRC from invading Taiwan? No. Can they make the price of that invasion unacceptably high? Yes.

    The goal of deterrence is convincing the other side to behave without firing a shot. The carrier task force opens up strategic options to that end.

    PEACE 😇

  19. The Kuznetsov does appear to have been effectively sidelined already.

    Since it had been sitting around, Russia was going to upgrade it so long as it wasn’t too costly.

    But it is hard to see cautious and pragmatic Putin spending on a costly new dry dock facility for this dated ship.

    That is not his style.

    Anyway, America and China have very different needs for their carriers.

    America uses them all over the world as tools of intimidation. And they do make impressive sights in distant lands.

    And it thinks it must have platforms to work in places like the South China Sea. It of course, always has Israel on its mind, too. And Iran is an obsession.

    I also believe there is an element in Pentagon and American Naval thinking a little bit resembling the Polish Army of 1939 not wanting to give up on a splendid-looking cavalry.

    It likes to use the term “power projection,” but I think there is something almost 19th century British imperial in the term. Well, what do you know, American indeed has a global empire?

    China likely thinks in terms of perhaps eventually having to use force on Taiwan.

    Their artificial island bases in the South China Sea, complete with runways and defensive missiles, actually to some extent now represent a permanently at-sea carrier fleet.

    Nobody knows better than China the vulnerabilities of such capital ships today. They do have what might be the most destructive missile for use against them, a missile they’ve lined a good part of their coast with.

    Yet they still see enough useful purpose in carriers to build new ones. I believe they’re planning on a total of about half a dozen. The next one, their third, is to have an electromagnetic catapult for the planes rather than a ski ramp.

    Since Russia is far, far more reluctant about being in the power-projection business than America, I’m not sure there is a good role for these immensely costly ships. Just their crews are on the order of 3 to 5,000 trained men who must be fed and housed and doctored at sea, and they require escort ships.

    Putin wants a good decade or so for Russia to grow economically in peace, and he believes he has assured that with the new hypersonic and other weapons. He even cut the military’s budget, something America’s press and politicians never mention. Too busy hyping the Russia threat.

    The role of these ships, whoever uses them, is likely to greatly change with new sophisticated drones. You can haul more drones than fighter planes, and you don’t need the immensely costly crews.

    • Agree: Cortes
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  20. Realist says:
    @A123

    What the hell? Your scenario was a perfect example of hegemony. Are you really that obtuse?

    • Replies: @A123
  21. @A123

    This may be antiquated thinking, imo. Hypersonic missiles like DF-117, 24, 21 are presently unstoppable. Salvos of other missiles may be almost unstoppable. And in the coming years China will have six carriers protecting SCS and near Pacific. And over 70 submarines. They will effectively have sealed off the region.

    PS I think Ron Paul would ask, What business is it of America to protect Taiwan and scores of other countries around the world?

    PPS I believe China has ten shipyards to our one or two. The industrial powerhouse that was America in WWII is now China.

  22. @John Chuckman

    Well said. Covers recent developments. Rapid growth of Chinese Navy has alarmed the Pentagon. Good incentive for Murka to avoid foreign entanglements.

  23. A123 says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    We probably do not disagree as much as you may think.

    … in the coming years China will have six carriers protecting SCS and near Pacific. And over 70 submarines. They will effectively have sealed off the region.

    I was talking about the Indian Ocean and you are talking about the South China Sea. The SCS has extensive coverage from land based military facilities.

    If China chooses to deliberately (or accidently) starts a war:

    — China’s military can force the U.S. out of the SCS.
    — The U.S. can deplete China’s military by cutting fuel shipments across the Indian Ocean.

    Hypersonic missiles like DF-117, 24, 21 are presently unstoppable.

    How many weapons systems has the U.S. said are unstoppable? The F-35 springs immediately to mind. The unstoppable F-35 can stop the planes carrying the unstoppable Chinese missiles before they are launched.

    — Are you going to say that senior military officials misrepresent system capabilities?
    — If so, is it not likely that both U.S. And Chinese military leaders are equally deceptive?

    Until systems go “head to head”, no one can be 100% sure what the outcome will be. And, that ambiguity enhances deterrence on both sides.

    China has ten shipyards to our one or two. The industrial powerhouse that was America in WWII is now China.

    The NeoConDemocrats under funding and over using the U.S. Military is an issue. If the elitist, Globalist left, deep state swamp is not drained — the disparity between U.S. and China commitment to military preparedness will eventually become a more profound problem. However, that crossover point is still decades away.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  24. A123 says:
    @Realist

    From #19 — The only use for aircraft carriers is to afford hegemony against lesser countries. Aircraft carriers are of no use against the US, Russia, China and probably Iran.

    I offered a case concerning carrier effectiveness about China (and to an extent about Iran) and you responded.

    What the hell? Your scenario was a perfect example of hegemony. Are you really that obtuse?

    You are being internally inconsistent. If my post reflects a successful hegemony strategy, then you are admitting that Iran and China are ‘lesser countries’ vulnerable to hegemonification (*).

    PEACE 😇

    [MORE]

    * OK. I made it up. There is no such word as “hegemonification“, but it sounds so entertaining….. 😁

    • Replies: @Realist
  25. Hey, Saker!

    Are you going to comment on Russo-Ukrainian natural gas agreements? Russia’s Gazprom has agreed to pay a $3 billion fine, awarded to Ukraine by international arbitrage. In exchange Ukraine promised not to sue Gazprom again.

    On top of that Ukraine gets a new 5-year transit contract, that will bring additional billions in revenue. So you might want to rethink your prediction of the looming economic collapse in the Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  26. @A123

    What no neo-con Republicans? How many do you want me to name? Why don’t you look at the signatories on PNAC for starters. You know the document that said we would need a new Pearl Harbor a year and a half before 9/11? I don’t know of a single Democrat on that document.

  27. Realist says:
    @A123

    If my post reflects a successful hegemony strategy, then you are admitting that Iran and China are ‘lesser countries’ vulnerable to hegemonification (*).

    I do not buy into your scenario…the US would be attempting to perform a hegemonic action, but I don’t think it would be successful.

  28. Realist says:
    @A123

    The ability to use carrier based aircraft to search for and intercept “dark” tankers and supertankers gives the U.S. a strategic capability that the Chinese cannot answer directly and Iran cannot answer at all. Operating in the mid to southern portion of the Indian Ocean would force China to approach in limited numbers from a predictable arc.

    Your scenario is an act of piracy on the part of the US. As for Iran it could easily molest US ship in the Persian Gulf.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  29. vot tak says:

    Generally agree with what saker writes on Russia, but this article is full of inaccuracies and misinformation.

    “First, the dry dock sank (it was Russia’s biggest) and then a huge crane came crashing down on the deck. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship killing 2 and injuring more.”

    The dry dock was old and in need of replacement. Russia needs more of these, regardless which ship types they will be used to repair. The crane accident is also related in that this is a legacy of the yeltsin times of total neglect, with the old infrastruc4 needing a lot of work to overcome this. This must be done regardless which ship types will be worked on. The fire was simply an accident due to shipyard poor safety practices. Again not related to the ship and an issure that needs solving regardless of which type of ships the Russians build.

    Here saker is essntially using accidents that occured during work on the ship to set the scene to argue against the ship’s usefulness. All of these issues must be corrected regardless what ships the Russians employ in their navy and are completely irrelevant to whether what sort of ships should be part of Russia’s navy.

    It’s late here and I’m not sure how much more I want to write tonight. I’ll continue in further posts which will also keep the comment length down and reduce the number of issues addressed in each.

  30. The Kuznetsov was never a good ship because she was built for the wrong role and was obsolete before she was even laid down. Even if she had had proper maintenance she would always have been a ridiculous floating white elephant.

    Why?

    The purpose of the Kuznetsov was to provide fleet defence in the case of a WWII style naval conflict. Apparently the Soviet designers of the 1970s-80s still expected a Battle of the Coral Sea/Leyte Gulf/Okinawa or at least a Hunt the Bismarck style situation, which of course was patently absurd. Naval battles of the old style are over; everyone could see that as long ago as Korea.

    But like the old 1930s aircraft carrier designs, which routinely included cruiser-sized gun turrets for defence against surface threats, the Soviet designers packed their aircraft-carrying ships with missiles, with the air wing almost an afterthought. This made the extremely bad class of ships known as the Kiev Class “aircraft carrying cruiser”; not very effective as cruisers, because of having to waste space on an air wing, and extremely ineffective as carriers, because the small flat deck meant for Yak 38s and helicopters hardly accomodated anything like a viable air group. Apparently this design philosophy, if one can give it such a title, forgot that for the carrier the air wing was supposed to be the purpose of its existence, and the ship’s aircraft, along with escorts, would protect it.

    This has next to nothing to do with the Montreux Convention that regulated passage through the Bosphorus, as Saker claims. After all, when the USSR finally decided to build a genuine aircraft carrier, the Ulyanovsk class, where was it laid down? The same Ukraine shipyards as the ridiculous “aircraft carrying cruisers,” that’s where. And there was absolutely nothing stopping the USSR from building more shipyards capable of constructing carriers elsewhere, if Montreux was such an insurmountable obstacle.

    Obviously, therefore, Montreux was not an obstacle and the USSR’s choice to build “aircraft carrying cruisers” was a deliberate one, not one forced on it.

    It was not as though the USSR didn’t actually know the value of carriers. Stalin had ordered carrier construction in the 1930s but it was interrupted by WWII. After that the USSR again initiated carrier designs in the 1950s, only to be scotched by Khrushchev. And when it finally built the Moskva class helicopter carriers in the 60s and the Kiev class in the 70s/80s, it was in the teeth of demands to build genuine carriers like the Amerikastani ones. Had it built real carriers, by now it would have had enough experience with them to have been not far behind the Amerikastanis. Instead, of course, it is now decades behind even China, which had no carrier at all until 2011.

    Then, the primary reason why the Kuznetsov’s air group is ineffective, and will remain ineffective no matter what the aircraft it would carry: the ski jump chosen as the launching method, instead of catapults. This again goes back to the idea that battle damage might render a catapult ineffective, but a ski jump will stay in action: any such battle,of course, has been extinct since WWII. A ski jump can only launch aircraft with high thrust to weight ratios; a fighter, no matter how good, can only take off with a fraction of its maximum load of weapons and fuel. Again, this was to be remedied in the Ulyanovsk with catapults like Amerikastani carriers….and, yes, let’s look at that E2C Hawkeye Saker mentions.

    The USSR knew all about the Hawkeye and had designed a similar AWACS aircraft, the Yak 44, which would have been launched by catapult from the Ulyanovsk and its successors. Unfortunately the aircraft, after reaching the mock-up stage, was cancelled at the murder of the Soviet Union.

    None of this is mentioned by Saker; either he does not know of it or he is not mentioning it for reasons of his own. Either he is not eligible to write this article or he is being dishonest.

    As far as the corvettes Saker loves so, here are the problems with them:

    1. They are small ships with small ordnance loads. Russia is now incapable of building even the Lider Class destroyer, which would have had a reasonable range and size. Therefore any enemy which stays out of easy range of a corvette’s missiles or has the ability to shoot down ten or fifteen missiles has rendered the corvette useless.

    2. Corvettes can’t even adequately defend themselves: they have either to stay in the coastal zone, protected by coastal air and sea defences (in which case they might as well be land based) or they have to go on suicide missions into airspace controlled by enemy aeroplanes launched by, well, aircraft carriers.

    3. Shooting missiles at ISIS in Syria from the Caspian Sea is a *little* different from shooting missiles at an Amerikastani battle group.

    When did Russia ever use carriers in combat? Well….in Syria, where the Kuznetsov had to do what? Fulfil the exact same role as Amerikastani aircraft carriers, that is, power projection ashore.

    And why should Russia then need carriers? I can think of these scenarios:

    1. Economic warfare by NATO short of all out full scale war. Amerikastan last year was already babbling about militarily blockading Russia. That would not be difficult since Russia’s geography means every single one of its ports, without exception, is covered by geographic chokepoints at a distance from its shores. What will Russia do if the Baltics are blockaded, and the Bosphorus, and the Sea of Japan? Go to full WWIII mode? Somehow I do not think so. Yet unless it has carriers to break the blockade, it has no other option (assuming it does not want to surrender).

    2. Force projection ashore in support of an ally, as in Syria.

    3. As the Arctic ice melts, Russia will have to choose between defending its exclusive economic zone there or have it looted by NATO pirates. If it chooses to defend its zone, it will either have to depend on an enormous number of shore based installations, on the inhospitable Siberian landmass, or to use a few carriers, each of which can control a huge area of ocean. Which do you think is the more logical option?

    4. To deter war. Amerikastani politicians are military illiterates. Amerikastani generals and admirals are political toadies. The reality of aircraft carrier obsolescence, assuming that is a reality (something I do not accept, as i have stated above) does not matter to them. A Russia without aircraft carriers to them simply means a weaker Russia, one that can be more easily pushed around without a too great risk of war. Is or is not it true that when Amerikastani “missile defences” were placed in Poland “against Iran”, in 2013-14, Amerikastanis immediately started talking about a “winnable” nuclear war and “destroying all of Russia’s missiles in the boost phase”? Is it or is it not true that the fixed ambition of Amerikastan is to destroy and subjugate Russia? Is it or is it not true that if Russia depends on its hypersonic missiles to protect itself, it only has the choice between WWIII and destruction, or capitulation?

    And given that according to Amerikastanis themselves aircraft carriers are a powerful tool of geopolitical leverage, will a Russian carrier fleet not at least give Amerikastan pause in any attempt to impose facts on the ground,or more accurately, on the seas?

    Of course it will.

    Why do you imagine the Chinese are so frantically building aircraft carriers – real carriers, not “aircraft carrying cruisers”, please note – if carriers are obsolete?

    All this is not to say that the Kuznetsov needs saving. In fact the earlier that heap of junk is scrapped the better. It is, however, to say that Russia can justify a carrier fleet on perfectly utilitarian grounds, not just as a vanity project.

    Having said that, if Russia wants to buy more carriers, what can it do? Build them? Perish the thought. Russian incompetence at shipbuilding is incredible and staggering. It, in fact, cannot even measure up to the ability of the USSR to build ships in the 1960s. It is too incompetent to even build a destroyer. It hasn’t even been able to raise the sunken dry dock or construct another yet, though it desperately needs it, and not just for the Kuznetsov. Build a carrier? Don’t make me laugh.

    Given that, the only practical answer is to pay* China, already decades ahead of Russia in shipbuilding and blazing further ahead by the minute, to build carriers, and destroyers, and perhaps cruisers, for the Russian Navy. It’s either that or become even more of a laughing stock than it already is.

    *Not necessarily in money; China would welcome Russian turbines, aircraft engines, electronics and weapons, as well as carrier borne aircraft.

  31. @A123

    LOL! What about the “dark” trade of Iraqi and Syrian oil stolen by ISIS and US army and shipped to Israel via Turkey? And protected by the USAF.

  32. vot tak says:

    “A quick look into the past…”

    This section incompletely describes Soviet naval carrier development and misrepresents the purpose the ships were designed for. The Soviets had plans for large carriers as far back as WW2 and the immediate aftermath. These were not pursued. The carriers they did develop, starting in the 1960s (Moskva) were defensive oriented.

    Moskva was mainly to provide surface ships with a better air asset employed anti-sub capability than the other ships’ 1 or 2 helicopters could provide. The next class, Kiev, added both an air wing for local CAP, and missiles to give the ship an offensive capability comparable to a missile cruiser. The air wing remained defensive oriented, the missiles were the offensive element, and the ship should be considered a hybrid. A successful hybrid, unlike the many before them in many navies. Both built and designed.

    The next design, of which Admiral Kuznetsov is one of the ships, increased the air component while keeping the strong missile suit, but their role remained essentially the same. Providing anti-sub and fleet air defense. None of these carriers should be considered aircraft carriers in the usual sense of a ship designed primarily as a mobile, floating air field. They are multi role ships, of which their air component is an integrated part. Successful hybrid designs incorporating defensive air power with the traditional surface ship roles.

    This is a very different strategy for the use a ship bourne air power than that used by the americans and should not be confused with it. Basically, american, and all western carriers are defenseless themselves (relying on their air wing and other escort vessels almost totally), and basically being mobile, floating air fields.

  33. Haha says:

    The good ship the mighty “Admiral Kuznetsov” DOES look rusty and has an overall look of decrepitude. So the decision to scrap it seems good common sense. But the surrounding decrepitude – dry docks falling apart, inefficient fire engines, fires on board, etc. – point to what? No cause for worry, the Saker assures his readers.

    If the latest hypersonic missiles are all that will be needed in future, why don’t all sensible countries get rid of their navies and cut back on land armies? Indeed, instead of planning for the next big one, why not be even more prescient and plan for the next to next big one? That one, on the authority of Einstein, will need nothing more than sticks and stones. Very environment and budget friendly will they be, too. Will Congress approve funding for them?

    Lacking any military knowledge, I just laid out some general thoughts above.

  34. Anything you do in life. next time you do it better.
    Even if you do a useless thing, it is still useful experience.
    Sign of intelligence is to use the product successfully for purpose that was originally not intended by design.

  35. unit472 says:

    I’m sure Russia, with its proven leadership in global technology, superior industrial engineering and world beating political leadership that saw it decline from the USSR to a threadbare dictatorship is on the verge of supremacy. Afterall, what else is a ‘president for life’ to promise his people other than only he is able to win.

    Unfortunately, Russia is a declining country unable to be anything else but a (stolen) nuclear power that not even the Chinese want to ally themselves with. Unable to even defeat Japan in a naval contest 115 years ago, this Soviet propagandist would have us believe his 3rd rate country has figured out the future of Naval supremacy from its landlocked homeland.

  36. Smith says:

    Russians themselves say aircraft carriers are useless, yet the chinks are building them.

    For what purpose? Aircraft carriers are entirely an aggressive tool, they are useless for national defense.

  37. @unit472

    It will take more than hundred years to US to build better personal weapon than AK47.
    And Russians can build ships.
    As I do remember US icebreaker did get stuck and froze in North and they did call Russia to free the US icebreaker. Russians did send two icebreakers, although I am positive one Russian icebreaker could do the job.

  38. Russia does not need carriers. It needs only to defend its land borders and raise its birthrates.

  39. Dr. Evil says:

    The Russians need something to carry their new Holodomor-class food-destroying missiles.

  40. roonaldo says:

    Russia needs these sitting ducks like it needs a hole in the head. The U.S., of course, needs them to dominate hapless 3rd world nations, but also to sink an old one, a la the U.S.S. Maine, to whip up domestic war hysteria for a conflict, say, in the Middle East, where we have plenty of willing accomplices. Those false flag chemical attacks in Syria just won’t do the job.

  41. Vidi says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Are you going to comment on Russo-Ukrainian natural gas agreements? Russia’s Gazprom has agreed to pay a $3 billion fine, awarded to Ukraine by international arbitrage. In exchange Ukraine promised not to sue Gazprom again.

    The Ukraine will likely not be getting any new money from the $3 billion. According to an article in Forbes (link), the IMF said the Ukraine has been owing Russia $3 billion for a loan since 2013. So the new “$3 billion fine” you are trumpeting probably means Russia is forgiving the loan but the Ukraine gets no new money. (The Ukraine wasn’t going to pay, no matter what, so Russia shrugged.)

    On top of that Ukraine gets a new 5-year transit contract, that will bring additional billions in revenue. So you might want to rethink your prediction of the looming economic collapse in the Ukraine.

    I doubt the new transit contract will earn much for the Ukraine. As far as I know, the deal is for the transit of 65 billion cubic meters for the first year, or about $5 billion at the current price for natural gas. That is the full price; the Ukraine will get only a fraction of it in transit fees.

    Where are the “addition billions in revenue” you are vaunting?

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  42. Smith says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    You should get the job that Saker was doing.

    You are doing actual analysis with actual knowledge of military capacity, geography and mentality (the need to have carriers to appear STRONK) and not this HURRAAAH RUSSIA GOOD UKRAINE BAD crap that Saker was writing all days long.

    Though the conclusion that Russia would end up depending on China for building carriers is a bit harsh, but that’s still a realistic speculation. As much as I hate chinks, they do have experience making ships, just not warships.

  43. I believe China is in the process of building a number of new aircraft carriers so as to match the USN
    In the Pacific. Why would they do this if these carriers are so vulnarabke? Any information on this?

  44. gotmituns says:

    The value of carriers lies in their vulnerability. Once they are sunk or disabled, new contracts to build new ones or repair the damaged ones can be awarded.

  45. Sell the ship and the associated technology to the Chinese because they are itching for a fight with the USN… Yelliw asses will be grass to the Lawn Mower!

  46. Z-man says:
    @Giuseppe

    NEOCON’S must be destroyed.
    As for the carriers with all the setbacks i.e.,’dry dock sinking’ etc. etc., the Russians should really think twice about those floating targets. At most they should have one on their east coast (Pacific) and one in the West, to show the flag. The Italians had their small ‘Harrier carrier’ Garibaldi which now has been supplanted by the much bigger Cavour. That’s what the Russians should look at.

  47. anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Giuseppe

    The most powerful Russian expression I have thus far seen, is its rational management of objectivity”; its capacity to contain response until its thoughts have been reduced to crystal clear understanding, its capacity to withhold claims until they become more or less obvious .. which produces a rare need to defend, and its propensity to speak openly to the masses asae the need for secrecy abates. Near as I can see, Putin has imposed “objectivity”, both vertically and horizontally, throughout the political bureaucracy which has made adjusting to challenge a self coordinating decentralized process.
    Simply said, its the organization that provides the defense few weapons can destroy.

  48. MLK says:
    @A123

    But the question here is whether Russia should/will maintain a carrier capability after these setbacks. That’s a fairly discrete question in that it had decided to do so until these bumps in the road.

    Whether intentional or not, it seems to me that the readily available solution to the dry dock destruction is to cut a deal with China.

    At best, I’m a casual — and thus dangerously ignorant — observer on warfare specifics like this. But it strikes me that Russia would think long and hard before giving up the hard-earned/expensive skill sets involved here. In other words, Russia’s calculus is quite different than Brazil’s:

    https://www.janes.com/article/91549/brazil-seeks-to-sell-former-aircraft-carrier

    Especially since these capabilities are applicable to space.

  49. GMC says:

    This old Aircraft Carrier is worth more than you think. It is a valuable tool for training young troops, making the vessel a great memory to all , along with Honor. It doesn’t matter what the West thinks nor the fact that it is out dated, but how many Russians, would see this, as the ship that tied in the CCCP to the Russian Federation, and is still on the Seas. Don’t ever let the Kuznetsov, become a ship forgotten – like the USS Liberty was !

    • Replies: @Z-man
  50. @Vidi

    The Ukraine will likely not be getting any new money from the $3 billion.

    Gazprom already paid $3 billion to Ukraine. In cash. Google it.

    On top of that Ukraine expects to earn $3 billion annually in transit fees. Tariffs are being kept secret from the public to preserve Putin’s dignity.

    And btw, the new contract stipulates that Stockholm’s arbitrage will be used to settle disputes. So, if anything doesn’t go to Ukraine’s liking, that will likely mean new lawsuits and new costly fines for Gazprom.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  51. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    For Russia carriers are sort of nice to have, but not a necessity in any streach.

    Russia simply doesn’t need the carrier deterrence, it has enough in means of missiles.
    And yes, a nice new carrier fleet would be nice for Russia to have, it’s just not worth the price tag. That money is way better spent elsewhere as Russia has already shown.
    Basically Russia is too broke for it. The safeguarding of the newly available northern passage is a valid point, but being that Russia is the current giant of the North seas gives it some time to cross that bridge when it gets there. Currently the rest of the world needs to work hard in order to match Russia in the North, not the other way around. I don’t think that there is a viable Northern passage threat for Russia anytime soon.

    Power projection for busting blockades is also a good point. It would be nice to have but is it really necessary? Russia, much like the US is resource self sufficient and is increasingly tech sufficient. Has land borders with China that guarantees it trade.

    Again, Russia could find good use for carriers but they are so not necessary for its current path and would pretty much bankrupt the country trying to come anywhere close what the US already has.

    Cheers

  52. unit472 says:

    The big drawback of large deck carriers for middle tier nations is their cost ( and you need more than one to keep a carrier at sea ). In the UK there are complaints that its two new carriers have eaten up so much of the defense budget there is no money for ASW warships that the Royal Navy used to patrol the Greenland Iceland UK line to keep Russian subs out of the North Atlantic in the event of a major war. Those in support of carriers retort that WW3 is unlikely and carriers can do things other warships cannot be it strike or humanitarian missions. Worth noting that after the Boxing day earthquake and tsunami while the UN relief agencies pondered how to respond an American aircraft carrier was on scene and providing SAR in Sumatra.

    As Russia, like China, lacks a network of overseas bases like Guam, Diego Garcia etc from which to deploy air power , carriers are the only alternative way for them to patrol the world oceans or conduct air strikes on coastal nations should that become necessary. Again the problem is cost, technology and developing the know how to operate these complex weapon systems.

  53. @Realist

    As for Iran it could easily molest [American] ship in the Persian Gulf.

    As the great naval strategist Daffy Duck once remarked: “Ho ho! That’s rich.”

    In 1988 the Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf’s international waters. The ship survived, with no loss of life to any sailor aboard.

    Four days later, during Operation Praying Mantis, the United States Navy severely damaged half of Iran’s (pathetic) operational fleet, sinking many of those ships. Two Iranian oil platforms outfitted with weapons were destroyed. The courageous and honourable Iranians used speedboats to attack several civilian vessels in the area. The American navy sank one of these speedboats and damaged the others, whose crews retreated. The Americans then ordered the crew of the Iranian Joshan to stop its engines and abandon ship, as the Americans intended to sink it. (N.B. the contrast between American and Iranian honour.) The Joshan instead fired a missile at the American Wainwright. It missed. The Americans then sank the Joshan. The Americans went on to sink the Iranian Sahand, then completely incapacitated the Iranian Sabalan (the Americans nearly destroyed it, but they did not quite sink it, and it was eventually repaired by the Iranians).

    For its trouble, the United States Navy lost two marines and the helicopter they were in. (The USS Gary evaded all Iranian missiles launched from Iran’s mainland.)

    The relative capabilities of both nations remain proportionate today; if anything, the U.S. Navy is even more superiour to Iran’s navy than it was in 1988. If the poop hit the fan, I would not want to be an Iranian sailor under the command of anyone as arrogant and foolish as to agree with your remark.

    (Yes, I realise the Iranians seized a couple of the U.S. Navy’s riverine patrol craft in 2016 because of their crews’ stupidity. That’s small beer and no indication of an ability to “easily molest American ships in the Persian Gulf.” In the event, the U.S. State Department made it very clear to Iranian officials what would happen if the captured sailors were not released – which they were; in part, no doubt, because the Iranians remembered the events of 1988.)

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Vidi
  54. Aircraft carriers of any nation are giant floating coffins that can be taken out of missiles, and the only reason they are still being built is for the MIC in both the ZUS and Russia.

    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @unit472
  55. @SeekerofthePresence

    The United States Navy maintains four governmental shipyards – in Bremerton, Pearl Harbor, Portsmouth, and Kittery. However, it also uses ten private shipyards – in Norfolk, Mayport, Charleston, Pascagoula, Great Lakes, Bath, San Diego, Pearl Harbor, Everett, and Portland. These facilities have a total of thirty-nine dry docks.

    All of China’s (ten, if we take your word for it) shipyards – like all of China – are run by its totalitarian government.

    Anyway, the bare numbers of shipyards (and ships) mean little in these matters. (China has long had more soldiers in its army than any nation on the planet; is the Chinese army superior to the U.S.A.’s army…?) To quote the Brookings Institute (hardly the last word on anything, but in this case their point is indisputable):

    If the size of a navy were the top indicator of capability, presumably the New York City Yacht Club (or at least that fraction of it carrying firearms) would possess the world’s most formidable armada. We are of course being facetious, but the larger point is valid.

    I’m not sure why, but The Unz Review has a risible number of readers who so obviously have no naval service, and concomitant naval expertise, who revel in making stupid proclamations about the U.S. Navy’s ostensible inadequacy, the vulnerability and purpose of carriers, and the invincibility of China. What with all the kerfuffle about Russian efforts to influence Americans via the Internet, one half wonders whether these comments are all being typed in Shenzhen….

  56. Z-man says:
    @GMC

    I like the way you snuck in the mention of the USS Liberty.
    We must never forget!

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  57. @Z-man

    Agree, see these books, Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen and Remember the Liberty by Phillip Nelson , both can be had on amazon, and both books have accounts by the survivors.

  58. All wars, the threat of war and international tensions are lies designed to control the internal populations. Paying corporations for vasty overpriced weapons is a big part of American operations, the same as it is for the Russians and their mafia. The rich profit mightily – big boats, big penis missiles, and so on.

    There’s something much more romantic about naming an aircraft carrier Ford or Reagan which calms the fear filled patriot taxpayers. The usual communist number and letter systems used for lies like the F-35 doesn’t inspire Christian love unless they are actually used to kill the poor instead of merely watching them starve nearby.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  59. voicum says:
    @Autochthon

    And you think that just because you were , once , on a fishing trip on a lake you are expert on naval issues ?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  60. I believe that Russia would be better off spending such monies on the development of high-speed aircraft transport ships along with advanced runway development. This way they can transport aircraft to areas of need fast with waiting emergency runways and crew to get the planes on the tarmacs. Such transport ships may be able to be designed with emergency flight decks, like the smaller US jeep-carriers of WWII, so that aircraft could be quickly dispatched in case of an attack.

    In place of high-speed transport ships, another option would be to develop advanced drop-tanks for aircraft that would allow such aircraft to get to targets far away rapidly in order to relocate such aerial forces.

    As Russian military experts have realized, aircraft carriers are simply large targets.

  61. @Kendra Barrett

    Agree, see The Report From Iron Mountain, the elites want perpetual war, google this report.

  62. @Autochthon

    In many cases, the basis for such “stupid proclamations” concerning the Navy’s possible vulnerability is the Pentagon’s own reports, think tanks like Rand, current and retired Naval officers, war games, “accidents” at sea, and capture of a US vessel. O yes, and good old high school math that extrapolates the rate of growth of the Chinese fleet and technological advances.

    But of course, ‘Murcan Xceptionalism makes all such concerns unpatriotic and unnecessary, and I retract them all. Anchors away!

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  63. Realist says:
    @Autochthon

    In 1988 the Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf’s international waters. The ship survived, with no loss of life to any sailor aboard.

    That was 31 years ago. Things have changed since then…not in the US’s favor.

    Iran had a pretty good year in the Persian Gulf. Aircraft craft carriers are setting ducks, speaking of Daffy.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  64. unit472 says:
    @Desert Fox

    In WW2 it proved damned difficult for the Japanese to sink US carriers even using Kamikaze aircraft and those carriers were midgets compare to today’s goliaths.

    The problem is a carrier is normally a moving target though during the Battle of Okinawa this problem was obviated by the US Fleet being stationed off that island to support the US Tenth Army ashore so the Japanese Kamikazes did not have to waste fuel trying to locate their targets. They just had to run a gauntlet of AAA to reach them. Few did even though hundreds tried. They even designed a rocked powered kamikaze missile called the Ohka that carried a 2000lbs warhead and could exceed 600mph in its terminal dive. The problem was the Ohka had to be carried by a larger bomber to reach the US Fleet off Okinawa and most of these mother ships were shot down before the Ohka was within range. Additionally attempts by the pilot to adjust his final dive at high speed as target ships reacted to the threat often caused loss of control and a crash into the sea.

    More recently Argentina enjoyed even less success trying to attack Britains small carriers during the Falklands war despite having the excellent French Exocet missile. This was a sea skimming subsonic missile with terminal guidance so the launching aircraft could, hopefully, avoid British air defenses. The problem here was the low flying launching aircraft acquired a target by radar and the Exocet went off after the radar target. One did strike the UK destroyer Sheffield and two more struck what the Argentines thought was an aircraft carrier but turned out to be a large cargo ship taken up from trade the Atlantic Conveyor.

    That’s about it for the history of attacks on carriers since early WW2. None of it indicates carriers are obsolete or invulnerable just that attacking them is both dangerous and hard to do successfully.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  65. @unit472

    Russia has the Avangard hypersonic glide missle that can take out a carrier and nothing can stop it. Aircraft carriers are only good for projecting air power against defenseless nations like Libya and Syria and Iraq and Yemen, they will become giant coffins against a real power like Russia!

    The ZUS is in for one hell of a suprise if the ZUS ever takes on Russia or China.

    • Replies: @unit472
  66. @voicum

    The fishing I did was for men, and no lakes were involved.

  67. @Realist

    “Iran had a pretty good year in the Persian Gulf?” What the Hell does that even mean? Are you referring to the drones the Americans and Iranians shot down? That was a bit of each nation sticking its tongue out at the other, silly and inconsequential – and even at that it was a wash, as each lost a few minor assets. The U.S. Navy maintains freedom of the seas in the region, just off the Iranians’ coast, despite the Iranian blustering and efforts to seize commercial tankers. Since the U.S.A’s interest is in preserving freedom of the seas, not war with Iran, and since the Iranians are the ones who were trying to interfere with freedom of the seas, I’d say the Iranians did not have a very good year at all, measured by the achievement of goals.

    Aircraft craft carriers are setting ducks, speaking of Daffy.

    What is an “aircraft craft carrier,” exactly? And where are the “aircraft craft carriers” setting these ducks, anyway?

    Please do elaborate on how you reckon things have changed since 1988 in a way that disfavours the United States Navy. (Take your time. I’ll wait….)

    • Replies: @Realist
  68. slorter says:

    Agree missile tech has change the game!

  69. @SeekerofthePresence

    Would you care to cite any of these arguments or construct your own, based upon facts, instead 0f making vague appeals to authority and conclusory proclamations?

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  70. @Autochthon

    No thanks. Those who call others stupid are obligated to do their own homework.

    The reports are out there. Read them.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  71. Realist says:

    Please do elaborate on how you reckon things have changed since 1988 in a way that disfavours the United States Navy. (Take your time. I’ll wait….)

    There is not a chance I will do your homework for you. If you have not keep up with world events…I’m not going to do it for you, you’re obnoxious.

  72. If I have missed something, please correct me. I don’t see any role for carriers in the future Russian Navy.

    Pretty much the same in Liechtenstein!

    (Even more serious now: Article is interesting, thanks!)

    ((It’s Liechtenstein, not Lichtenstein. Liechtenstein is more medieval – and correct.))

  73. Fun Fact: “Kuznetsov” is Russian for “McCain.”

  74. unit472 says:
    @Desert Fox

    From what I have read about this hypersonic glide missile it is basically a strategic weapon so if Russia wants to attack US carriers with nuclear weapons they can do it without using a new weapon system of unproven reliability. Not sure if a hypersonic missile is really capable of hitting a carrier moving at 30 knots anyway. That’s over half a mile per minute so an Avangard air launched from 1000 miles away would still need more than 10 minutes to close the distance of where the carrier was when launched by which time the carrier would be more than 5 miles from there.

    If the launch vehicle tried to get any closer it could be attacked by carrier aircraft or air defense missiles.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @utu
    , @A123
  75. @unit472

    In my opinion aircraft carriers are only good for projecting air power against defenseless nations, and are sitting ducks for a power like Russia and are only good for pissing off money for the MIC.

  76. utu says:
    @unit472

    What do we know for sure about this Putin’s Wunderwaffe? Does it exist? Was it ever tested? Or is it just a propaganda Vergeltungswaffe extolled by the zero credibility Russian propagandists like The Saker and Andrei Martyanov?

  77. A123 says:
    @unit472

    Both overestimating and underestimating are militarily unwise. Both sides are trying to stake out extreme positions. The newest generation of missiles are:
    — Unstoppable
    — Or, Irrelevant
    The truth is almost certainly somewhere between the two extremes:

    — They are unlikely to fundamentally change the balance of power. After all, the Chinese are building their own supercarrier(s), so they obviously think they the platform has a future.

    — However, the tactical need for increased separation increases the number of “no go” areas and will slow down operating tempo. They definitely make life harder on the U.S. Navy.

    … would still need more than 10 minutes to close the distance of where the carrier was when launched by which time the carrier would be more than 5 miles from there.

    This is not that big a technical obstacle. If the carrier’s speed, heading, and position are known at launch there is a fairly small position bubble at the end of the flight. Final guidance would be a mix of optical, magnetic, radar, and probably additional undisclosed technologies to make last second course changes. Chances of a miss are very low unless the weapon can be spoofed into going after the wrong target.

    Having a supercarrier near land where it could be swamped by advanced missiles could give the enemy a free kill. Sailing through a tight areas is a peace time activity, to show the flag or maintain freedom of the seas. The U.S. Navy would not intentionally fight a supercarrier from the Baltic, Persian Gulf, or South China Sea. All three could easily be turned into shipping graveyards.
    ______

    Fortunately, neither John McCain nor Hillary became President. They would propose permanently basing a carrier in The Caspian Sea… Don’t ask how it would get it there… NeoConDemocrat craziness doesn’t need logic.

    Is there any way we can posthumously give McCain to the Democrats? Retroactively change his party registration as a Christmas present? Please Santa — Please!

    MERRY CHRISTMAS 🎄

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  78. anon[680] • Disclaimer says:

    What body part was the SS Minnow referring to for 1000.00 please, Alex

    The answer is!

    Who is Netanyahu?

  79. @SeekerofthePresence

    I’ve read the relevant reports. (Hell, I’ve cited two here.) It’s one reason I am not writing stupid things, then pretending to be too hip for the room when called on my bullshit. You are indeed stupid. I was making an effort to have a discussion, but there’s no point arguing with a stranger on the Internet – especially a stupid one – not interested in actual discussion. Carry on.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  80. @A123

    McCain wet started his jet which caused caused rockets to cook off on the jet behind him and the resulting explosion and fire killed 168 and wounded 161 on the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967.

    • Replies: @unit472
  81. Hodd says:

    Russia needs a new fleet of aircraft carriers to defend its interests in the Artic. It needs to project its power to the Greenland-Iceland-Faroe-Shetland-Norway gap to keep out or control access to its waters. It can only effectively do this with five carriers, each carrying a wing of manned aircraft and a wing or two of drones.

    While these carriers may not be of the size of the US carriers and will be protected by submarines and surface ships, their role can not be effectively substituted by land based air patrols.

    Russia must defend its Artic shoreline and the best defence is to control access.

  82. unit472 says:
    @Desert Fox

    But did not sink it! The Forrestal incident was about as catastrophic thing as can happen above the waterline as is imaginable. Dozens of fully fueled, armed jets on deck exploding and burning and yet the ship survived.

    I previously surveyed the history of carriers in combat but left out a significant part. During the Battle for Okinawa Task Force 57 was composed of Royal Navy ships. This fleet patrolled the Southern approaches to Okinawa between Japanese occupied Taiwan/Formosa and Okinawa. It was a substantial fleet with 6 large carriers and more escort carriers. They too were the subjected to conventional and Kamikaze attacks.

    The British carriers had a smaller aircraft complement but had armored their flight decks. Thus when an 8000 lbs Kamikaze aircraft moving at 30o+ mph carrying a 500lbs bomb struck home the damage was minimal. The ships were quickly repaired and returned to station. The US Navy realized wooden flight decks were obsolete and all US carriers were then equipped with armored flight decks.

    It maybe that carriers are obsolete but missiles have a problem attacking mobile targets with their own defense systems. Fire and forget doesn’t even work for a rifle. I’ve seen deer ‘duck’ a 200mph arrow fired at 40 yards. If they can see it they can defeat it is the operative principle in warfare!

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Daniel Rich
  83. @Autochthon

    This and your previous comment indicate you are not interested in rational discussion but in Xceptionalist banalities.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  84. Vidi says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Gazprom already paid $3 billion to Ukraine. In cash. Google it.

    You brought up the $3 billion fine to Russia. My opinion is that Russia is merely forgiving an old $3 billion debt owed by the Ukraine (and I linked to an article on Forbes saying that, in the IMF’s opinion, the Ukraine indeed owes that much). You were implying that the Ukraine would get $billions of new money. You prove it.

    On top of that Ukraine expects to earn $3 billion annually in transit fees.

    As I proved, the total price of the natural gas would be worth $5 billion in the first year. The Ukraine is not getting a $3 billion transit fee.

    Tariffs are being kept secret from the public to preserve Putin’s dignity.

    Ukies lie a lot.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Felix Keverich
  85. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Well written, well argued.

    I would add that there’s an unspoken premise behind all of Saker’s military articles that he relies on his audience to accept in advance without examination: that it’s easy to hit targets with missiles.

    Of course it isn’t. The world is a very big place, and targets move, faster isn’t always an asset and neither missiles nor their radar work the way the average Saker reader assumes he knows that they work. I could go on but what would be the point?

  86. Vidi says:
    @Autochthon

    The relative capabilities of both nations remain proportionate today; if anything, the U.S. Navy is even more superiour to Iran’s navy than it was in 1988.

    It won’t be Navy vs. Navy. If a war breaks out, it will be Saudi Arabia’s oil versus Iran’s missiles. The Saudis will not win.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  87. Smith says:
    @Vidi

    (CN) — In line with a recent deal for Moscow to supply Europe with gas through Ukraine for at least five years, Russian energy company Gazprom announced Friday that it paid $2.9 billion to Ukraine’s state-owned oil company Naftogaz.

    The deal marks a major settlement between the countries. After Moscow’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 escalated tensions, the two arbitrated over gas prices and transit fees for years in Stockholm.
    Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolyev, left, arrives at EU headquarters in Brussels on Sept. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/Thierry Monasse, File)

    Naftogaz confirmed receipt of the payment.

    “Today, Naftogaz of Ukraine has received from Gazprom $2.918 billion, which includes the outstanding portion of the compensation awarded by the Stockholm Arbitral Tribunal in February 2018 and accrued interest,” the company said on its website Friday. “In total, Naftogaz received $5 billion from Gazprom in the result of the transit arbitration.”

    https://www.courthousenews.com/russia-strikes-3b-deal-with-ukraine-on-gas-transit/

    Well, Ukies can lie about receiving money but Ruskies also lie on sending the money?

  88. Leaving politics aside:

    1. Aircraft carriers are easily sunk by a peer opponent, via nuclear weapons, submarines, mass cruise missile attacks, or mass ballistic missile attacks. This is mostly because they are packed with bombs, missiles and fuel, so are a floating powder keg, and require the support of a big cargo ship each week sailing from a major port, so are easy to find. Just one minor hit could explode one. This great scene from a Transformers movie shows an example, which could be done with ballistic missiles containing long rod penetrators surrounded by incendiaries. https://youtu.be/8gu57bLcN3k?t=140 They should hide far from an enemy until the seas are made safe by aircraft and submarines. Much more here: https://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm

    2. If these threats do not exist (against a weak nation) or were suppressed after a year of war against a peer opponent, aircraft carriers are valuable for power projection needed to support amphibious operations.

    3. In the USA, they have become too expensive to procure and operate, sucking funds from other areas. For example, the USA has no land-based naval bomber to launch dozens of cruise missiles at ships or targets ashore, details here: https://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm It also lacks the aircraft needed to fully outfit the carrier fleet, and has a zero store of wartime replacements (except for SH-60s for an odd reason) The USA should quickly scrap two carriers to balance the fleet.

    4. This may happen automatically if they can’t get EMALS to work reliably. This is the new electromagnetic launch system on the new Ford class that fails every 74 launches. It seems exposure to harsh elements on the carrier deck causes problems. The USS Ford has not launched an aircraft in almost two years, and the second $14 billion Ford was just finished and two more are halfway complete. If EMALS don’t work it will cost billions of dollars and many years to rip open the ships and install steam, so the Navy may be forced to cut the number of carriers. This is the biggest scandal in American military history, and it receives no press coverage. I wrote about this almost two years ago: https://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm

    • Replies: @Smith
  89. @unit472

    My point was about McCain and what he did that would have had anyone else put in prison, except that his father was a high ranking admiral and by the way McCain made some 30 tapes for his captors and was named the song bird of Hanoi, he was a traitor.

    In regards to carriers being floating coffins in a war with Russia or China , I stand by what I said.

    • Agree: Daniel Rich, Z-man
  90. @Vidi

    You were implying that the Ukraine would get $billions of new money. You prove it.

    Too lazy to use googlesearch?

    Gazprom has completed a $2.9 billion payment to Naftogaz on the basis of the ruling of the Stockholm Arbitration Court, a spokesman from the Russian company confirmed Friday.

    https://sputniknews.com/business/201912271077883560-gazprom-completes-29-bln-payment-to-ukraines-naftogaz-in-effort-to-settle-dispute/

    Naftogaz confirmed receiving $2.9 billion from Gazprom.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  91. Smith says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Another great analysis with actual data.

    From this alone, it seems the chinks are wasting a shitload of money by building carriers, because carriers alone are not enough, you need to have a bomber fleet as well as fighter fleet to protect your bombers, as well as naval fleet to protect your carriers. All Vietnam, Phillipines and Japan need to do is procure missiles and spam them to death while chinks waste trillions on making ships and planes.

    Once again, the actual meat of the chinks lie in their land army, but fortunately, the moment they do a land invasion into any of their opponents (be in Vietnam or India), they will fall into the same trap the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In short, air power not enough to win war, naval power rendered useless by opponent regional powers’ missiles, land army that is too afraid to get tangled into a real war. Economy is the only way China can wage war, and this is why more countries need to get nationalist and stop their corporations from selling more jobs to China/getting more dependent on China.

    • Troll: Blinky Bill
  92. vot tak says:

    A quick note for all the “experts” here, and that includes saker. Russia has decided what they will do regarding the Admiral Kuznetsov and whether they will continue with ac carrier development. I know this is rude of them, ignoring all of your esteemed, expert “advice”, but they will pursue their own goals regardless. They’re Russians, afterall. ;-D Given Russia’s recent successes in weapon design, I think their own judgements of their defense needs far outweigh what the “great western armchair admiral brigade” has decided for them about what they should be doing next. 😀

    Or as Putin remarked, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  93. MarkinPNW says:

    I still like the idea that the “Gazprom” settlement is some kind of Putinesque 5 dimensional chess move in response to the sanctioning of the German and Swiss pipelaying contractors for Northstream; buying time for those contractors to either find a way around the sanctions, or to hand the contracts back to the much slower, but still capable Gazprom pipelaying ships. All while “Russia giving in to Ukraine” actually allows Russia to keep on selling gas to Europe much cheaper (if not as cheap after the fees to Ukraine) than American LNG.

  94. Vidi says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Naftogaz confirms receipt of $2.9 bn outstanding compensation from Gazprom

    The next thing I expect to see is “The Ukraine repays $3 billion loan from Russia”. As I said, I doubt the Ukraine will get any new money.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Felix Keverich
  95. @Vidi

    You reckon the Iranians have figured out how to keep their missiles from chasing chaff instead of hitting their intended targets?

    Why are you invoking Saudi Arabia in a discussion about the military capabilities of the U.S.A. and Iran stemming from an assertion Iranian forces can easily molest American ships and, earlier still, about the viability of carriers?

    The Saudis have no carriers. They – like the Iranians – hardly have a navy to speak of. Despite their proximity, the Saudis have little relevance to the capabilities of the U.S. Navy to operate unmolested in the Persian Gulf.

    Why do you reckon the Saudis would respond to an attack by Iranian missiles with oil? (The Saudis are far more likely to respond to any such an attack with their own missiles and aircraft.)

    This entire thread is just commenter after commenter writing goofy non sequiturs the writers seem to think are clever and punchy.

    I’m going back to Steve Sailors blog. You guys have fun with the analysis of military contingencies at the level of “muh deddy kin wup yer deddy.”

    (To those few of you who’ve made intelligent points, I bid you well.)

    • Replies: @Vidi
  96. Smith says:
    @Vidi

    Can you show it to me in a crystal ball? And they already got the money.

  97. If Russia is broke, I want to be ‘broken‘ too…

    :o]

  98. @unit472

    Thus when an 8000 lbs Kamikaze aircraft moving at 30o+ mph carrying a 500lbs bomb struck home the damage was minimal.

    It’s always good to study the past, but one should never forget what’s going on in the present.

    Any idea what happens when a Russian Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (“dagger”), nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) flying with a speed of Mach 10 – Mach 12 [12,250 – 14,701 km/h or 7,612–9,134 mph] hits an aircraft carrier?

    I’m no missile expert, but this man, Andrei Martyanov [who’s also occasionally published or comments here at Unz Review], is.

    FB [although I haven’t seen him for a while] knows a lot about air defenses.

    They talk, I listen :o]

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @awry
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  99. @Vidi

    Excuse me, but are you daft? Ukraine just got $3 billion worth of new money from Russia + very lucrative transit contract.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  100. awry says:
    @Giuseppe

    You make a strong case that the Admiral Kuznetsov has been made an anachronism by Russia’s own advanced weapons systems. I fear the neo-con Russophobes that run the US and its military will simply interpret the disaster in the dry dock as a comedy. They view Russia simultaneously as a threat and as a backward joke, and this cognitive dissonance greatly increases the possibility of nuclear war because of the intentional disbelief in what Russian weapons can really do. So despite the vaunted greatest military in the world, we are made less safe by the posturing, lies, venality and inability to come to terms with reality. It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in charge, they all suffer from the same collective psychosis; what can any of the rest of us do to stay safe beyond relocate to the Southern Hemisphere?

    A “backward joke” can still be a threat, think North Korea or Iran. The US deep state views Russia as the convenient arch-enemy as it is not a real threat to US hegemony (contrary to China). Of course the neoconservative and neoliberal Jews and indoctrinated Christian Zionists are Russopobes, they won’t be satiated until Russia is dismembered and US troops enter Moscow. For them hating on and being obsessed by everything Russia is an almost religious issue. After all, it was the Tzar who persecuted their forefathers, it was the Okhrana which has “forged” the Protocols. It was Stalin who massacred the Jewish Bolsheviks along with the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee later (after creating it in the first place), who concocted the Doctor’s plot etc. Later the USSR did not let their people go, and was compared to the Pharaoh in Zio-Christian propaganda for that.
    But they are not insane, they did not want to start a nuclear war during the Cold War either, contrary to Soviet propaganda. Their methods are: force the opponent to an arms race it cannot win (the Soviet Union was wrecked economically when it tried to keep up with Reagan’s much fanfared military buildup in the ’80s, that along with other factors was too much for the ineffective, dumb socialist command economy and the Soviet elite realized that it’s over, so accepted the defeat without putting up a fight), win a psychological and cultural war against him (the appeal of the freedom and affluence (real and imagined) of the West really discredited the rigid and failing socialist systems in the eyes of the population) and other soft power methods. Now the USA tries to use the same tactic against Russia, which is not socialist anymore so it’s economy is not as hopeless and moribund as the USSR’s was, but it is still largely based on the export oil/gas and raw materials (now also wheat contrary to Soviet times when the USSR had to buy wheat because of the horribly inefficient kolkhoz system, so this is an improvement). They try to hinder the Russian defense industry by sanctioning high tech exports to Russia (it worked somewhat against the Soviets and definitely hurts Russia too somewhat, as Russian industry was still much dependent on imported technologies). And of course there is the propaganda war, including things like banning Russia from the Olympics etc.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  101. Antares says:

    The Russians and Chinese can better use their advantage very soon before the US catches up. They are only becoming crazier in Washington and the media are completely on their side. People have nothing to say. The war is unavoidable.

    The best thing would be to attack at once and take out everything that could somehow fire back. It would be fired at them anyway so they better shoot themselves before things go wrong.

    This may sound ‘unrealistic’ to some. I could only wish that my previous assertions about wars were also so ‘unrealistic’ but this has unfortunately never been the case. Anyone with eyes sees the war coming.

    The alternative is clear. First Iran will be taken down by the US, after they wiped out Hezbollah and took Syria together with Iraq. Palestinians will be ‘removed’ somehow. This is step one.

    (Some will argue that the RF is in the way, but they don’t even dare to remove the illegal US bases from Syria right now. China still believes that it can win economically.)

    Without fuel, China enters the position of Japan in 1939. The US is now firmly based in the Middle East. This is step two.

    Insurgents from Nepal will attack Tibet and blame it on China. The media silences everything about what is going on but builds up a case against China. When China has no other possibility than to react militarily and enter Nepal, the trap will close. Our people will DEMAND a war with China. This is step three.

    The reason why India is on the side of the US is not only because they are fascists but also because the US has tremendous fire power. Take it away.

    Japan doesn’t want to be a slave but they have to bow to US supremacy. Take it away.

    Europe doesn’t want to be overrun by aliens but they are defenceless against US economic and military power. Take it away.

    South America doesn’t want to be run by dictators but the US has overwhelming power. Take it away.

    Africa doesn’t want its resources to be stolen, its farmlands GMO-ised and its children vaccinated against fertility by USAID. Take it away.

    All countries are against the US (Israel is not a country) but are too afraid to do something.

    The US destroys the whole planet. It is time that the whole planet destroys the US.

    Nobody outside of the US is interested in articles about white flight. Nobody. Just drop dead before you kill us. Americans think, talk and act like zionists. Best we treat you like that before we are dead.

    Btw, I can imagine that not all Americans are happy to hear the truth. Too late. Sorry. There has almost been no year in the American history without a fight, war or coup outside of the US and it is only getting worse. It is in their mentality. The US is evil by nature and should be removed.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  102. awry says:
    @Daniel Rich

    Any idea what happens when a Russian Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (“dagger”), nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) flying with a speed of Mach 10 – Mach 12 [12,250 – 14,701 km/h or 7,612–9,134 mph] hits an aircraft carrier?

    Provided that it hits the carrier at all. I see no unidisputable evidence that the Kinzhal is capable of hitting such a moving ship. It seems to me that it is that what you say: an air-launched ballistic missile, it seems to be an air launched variant of the Iskander family. No evidence of it having terminal guidance at all (while it may be possible). If the Kinzhal is the ship-killing hypersonic weapon some claim it to be then why the Russians bother with developing the Tsirkon in parallel with it? But it may be theoretically possible that the Kinzhal can indeed be used as an “AShBM”.
    Here is a translation of part of an evaluation I found on a military tech oriented blog in my language:

    Russian sources stress that the Mach 10 (10-12,000 km/h) missile can perform maneuvers throughout the whole trajectory. This, in turn, drastically distinguishes it from ballistic missiles and, more importantly, makes it very difficult to defend against it. These are the characteristics that distinguish Kh-47M2 from the obscolescent Kh-22/-32 and the already phased out Kh-15 missiles. These weapons only performed manoeuvres to hit the target precisely, not to evade air defence. At the same time, the Kinzhal accelerates to Mach 4 after its release, and then accelerates to Mach 10 in ballistic trajectory. It seems that the Kinzhal replaced the capabilities that have been eliminated by the retirement of the Kh-15 (a missile comparable to the American SRAM, also not in service anymore), but at a higher level. Its range is 2-3000 km, 7-10 times larger, while its speed is double.
    The Kh-47M2 looks to be the airborne counterpart of the Iskander tactical ballistic missile with slightly altered nose and smaller guidance surfaces. This kinship means a two-stage arrangement and a conventional solid propellant rocket engine. That explains why the missile can be already in service on modified MIG-31Ks, since the Iskander has existed for a long time. The Iskander-MIG-31 pair already appeared on Internet forums around 2010, so Kinzhal is not unprecedented. Nevertheless, it was quite a surprise when it officially entered service.
    Basically, the Iskander flies by the usual inertial navigation platform, but its various versions also have the ability to compare electro-optical image and target area digital map with onboard radar measurements. So it is not excluded that the Kinzhal inherited these, but there is no evidence of this. At the same time, the Russians also mention the ability to target ships, which can only be achieved through terminal correction of the flight path (by active radar guidance). This is not self-evident, because due to the top speed being one and a half to two times higher than the Iskander’s, heating due to aerodynamic friction does not make it easy to make a nose cone sufficiently heat resistant, but transparent to radar waves.
    In any case, if the capability to target ships proves to be true, the Russians catched up with the Chinese, who already have the DF-21D ballistic missile against ships and are in the process of developing an airborne version launched by the H-6N bomber. Kh-15 and DF-21D are therefore the reference weapons for categorizing Kh-47M2.
    However, the main purpose of the Kinzhal, at least for the time being, seems to be to strike fixed surface targets. However, Russian assessments point out that the current US missile defence systems are not (or at least not sufficiently) suitable to combat Kinzhal. Therefore, against the Aegis missile system deployed in Europe (Romania, Poland) or cruising in the surrounding waters, the new hypersonic missile can be able to eliminate them and thus ensure successful use of other weapons.

    [MORE]

    Similar missiles of the People’s Republic of China, considered to be the main opponent of the United States, give rise to serious disputes, at least in the Anglo-American military and general press. Expensive aircraft carriers, which are central to their strategy and offer significant opportunities, are in greater danger than ever before, while almost only the SM-6 missiles on board accompanying Aegis ships can provide defence against ASBMs. Although attempts have been made for a long time to create missiles integrated into fighter armament that are capable of intercepting ballistic missile warheads, they have not yet produced a service-ready type. And in the meantime, China is working on an even harder threat in the form of WU-14 (Russian analogue: Tsirkon), perhaps even more dangerous maneuverable hypersonic glider. Therefore, American articles already raise the obsolescence of aircraft carriers too valuable and vulnarable assets which are too expensive to sacrifice them. Thus, their strategic usability is becoming highly questionable.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  103. The complexity itself in running an aircraft carrier or an F-35 is a factor to rule out Russia from building an aircraft carrier. Electronic warfare exacerbates the complexity. There are so many sub-systems and counter-systems defending against electronic warfare against such expensive targets that the military will soon be training an army of physicist equivalents to operate its platforms. One little glitch can make the entire edifice fatally vulnerable. The glitches keep being discovered and then another subprogram has to be installed (not just on the computer, but the whole operation with training etc. with possible glitches in the fix). Russia has addressed this issue on its internet by running it on its own system; otherwise it is impossible to defend against. The primary goal of the effectiveness of defense (in an actual war) has been lost sight of in the U.S. where MIC profits prevail as a goal.

  104. @Antares

    Sadly agree, but in my opinion, I think that if Iran is attacked, Russia will come in on the side of Iran as Russia understands that they would be next.

    The zionists who control the ZUS believe they can survive in their DUMBs ie deep underground military bases which they have throughout the ZUS and Israel and ZEurope, so they are willing to have a nuclear war with Russia, with all that it entails, these creatures are satanists.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  105. @utu

    Putting the Hype in Hypersonic Weapons

    Oh boy! The author of this drivel, meanwhile, is a guy with an incredible background (/sarc) in weapon systems integration, operational art and engineering.

    Thompson has been covering U.S. national security for four decades, including from 1994 to 2016 as senior correspondent and deputy Washington bureau chief at TIME Magazine. Mark worked at TIME from 1994 to 2016. Before that, he covered military affairs for the late Knight-Ridder Newspapers (including the Detroit Free Press, the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the San Jose Mercury-News) for eight years. Prior to Knight-Ridder, Mark reported from Washington for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for seven years. During that time, he and his paper were awarded the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for a series of articles on an uncorrected design flaw aboard Fort Worth-built Bell helicopters that had killed nearly 250 U.S. servicemen.

    https://www.pogo.org/about/people/mark-thompson/

    Yet another journo without a clue, offering his advice on technology and operational art (the passage about ICBMs traveling with “hyper-sonic” speeds reveals the depth of ignorance) and in doing so, writes a piece which doesn’t pass the smell test for basic physics and operations. No wonder US cannot win wars–they are planned by journos, lawyers, celebrities and stock brokers.

  106. @Desert Fox

    Sadly agree, but in my opinion, I think that if Iran is attacked, Russia will come in on the side of Iran as Russia understands that they would be next.

    Russia will aid Iran but not for the reasons of fear of being “next”. Even Russia’s General Staff forecast through 2050 sees no major conflict between major powers. As per US getting embroiled in full blown war in Iran, that may mark the end (literally, disintegration due to political upheaval) of the United States. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will look like a vacation in comparison.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Antares
  107. @SeekerofthePresence

    Factual ≠ Banal

    https://news.usni.org/2019/12/18/report-to-congress-on-navy-force-structure-5

    https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf

    https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843

    Say, Wing Wong: Why do you reckon your vaunted Chinese are building aircraft carriers in an effort to approach the U.S. Navy’s levels of technological competence?

    Why do you reckon the top speed of air craft carriers is classified?

    Like most other of the “carriers are obsolete” crowd, everything you write presumes carriers float around at ten knots alone. Do you even know what CAP stands for?

    If mobile carriers are hopeless, what’s the point of having a military base of any kind? They are even slower and less manueverable than carriers? Shouldn’t every military in the world go ahead and stop maintaining military bases because missiles doom them all?

    I reiterate: your conclusory assertions (for they are not arguments) are stupid.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  108. @awry

    Thanks for the additional info.

    Here’s a bit more about the WU-14 [wiki]:

    The DF-ZF is thought to reach speeds between Mach 5 (3,836 mph (6,173 km/h; 1,715 m/s)) and Mach 10 (7,680 mph (12,360 km/h; 3,430 m/s)).[8] The glider could be used for nuclear weapons delivery but could also be used to perform precision-strike conventional missions (for example, next-generation anti-ship ballistic missiles), which could penetrate “the layered air defenses of a U.S. carrier strike group.”[1][8]

    A lot of ‘thought to be’ and ‘coul bed’ though…

  109. @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia’s Valery Gerasimov chief of the Russian general staff warns of the coming war, scroll down on the home page of russia-insider.com on the right hand side, until you come to the report.

  110. @Desert Fox

    True: Russia is preparing for war. They understand that neocons run US foreign policy, and that they will stop at nothing. I believe Russia wants all combat systems upgraded by about 2025. Then they will be ready for just about anything.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  111. @Desert Fox

    Russia’s Valery Gerasimov chief of the Russian general staff warns of the coming war,

    No, he doesn’t–he points out the fact of preparation (as in combat training) to a major conflict but there is no a single word of “the coming war”. Believe me, I have full command of Russian language.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/7367631

    In related news, Russia also is preparing for a major conflict and in fact Russia’s preparations are immense, such as this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_2018

    or this:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/russia-conducts-tsentr-2019-military-exercises-with-china-and-india.html

    In other words, Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  112. @Autochthon

    Factual ≠ Banal

    There is something worse than “banal,” which is “out-of-date.”

    The word “hypersonic” is not in any of your “reports.”
    But hypersonic weapons are the #1 threat to the US Navy.

    So your “information” belongs in a museum, not on UR,
    perhaps next to the Flintstones exhibition.

    Your research is useful only to defense corporations, which profit mightily from making useless weapons.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  113. @SeekerofthePresence

    Oooohhh… hypersonic. Do you know what a Growler is? A Hawkeye? Do you know anything about actual combat? How many decorations do you have? Wha theatres have you served in?

    Right; the reports I cited from December 2019 are outdated.

    Let me know when a hypersonic missile sinks an aircraft carrier in the United States Navy, and, even assuming such a laughably unlikely event, how that turns out for the perpetrators, as they cope with the United States Navy’s and the United States Air Force’s reaction (remember, genius, that the U.S. Navy is but the second most powerful and numerous air power on the planet…the first being the United States Air Force…and they operate complementarily…)

    Let’s presume, for the sake of argument, the Chinese (or whomever you are rooting for) destroy all twenty of the U.S.A.’s carriers. How does this happen, and what happens next? Do tell….

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  114. @Autochthon

    all twenty of the U.S.A.’s carriers

    Google: “The United States Navy has 11 large nuclear-powered fleet carriers….”
    Your “data” seem to be more and more questionable.

    And yes, the Dec 2019 report is out of date:
    it fails to mention the #1 current and developing threat, hypersonic missiles.

    Waiting for one (or a salvo) to sink a carrier is a little late in the game, don’t you think?

    The difficulty with your posts (besides their contempt for the reader) is the oldest failure in warfare, “Too late.”

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  115. I suggest you guys should ignore the commenter “Smith” because he is a literally Vietnamese Sinophobia who eat too much USA propaganda from Hollywood, MSM, bias and ignorant viewpoint from overseas Vietnamese, etc. Trust me, the person is hopeless to save.

    Allow me to use my language to “Smith”:

    Smith, mày chỉ anh hùng bàn phím. Mày có là lính hải quân không thế mà sao mày cứ làm như thể là mày hiểu biết lắm ý? Nếu mày giỏi thế thì mày vào thesaker.is viết mấy câu bình luận xem nào. Đừng nói xấu người khác sau lưng.

    Translate by me:

    Smith, you are just a keyboard hero. Are you a navy soldier so this is the reason you are “know it all”? If you have so much knowledge then you go to thesaker.is to write the comment. Don’t talk bad behind people back.

    Please forgive me for my bad english grammar.

  116. @SeekerofthePresence

    Fuck you, and fuck Alphabet, Inc.

    The U.S.A. has eleven CVNs.

    You fucking doughnut.

    Do you know what LHAs and LHDs are? Do you not yet realise you are interlocuting with a United States sailor?

    Fuck off.

    • Troll: vot tak
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  117. @Daniel Rich

    Kinzhal missile travels vertically, so horizontal speed of aircraft has no influence on effectiveness of
    payload. The missile is fired at great height, so the aircraft is practically invulnerable to shut down.
    Gravitational forces increase the penetration force of the missile. I would guess that explosion happens inside the body of the ship. In my opinion it will disable any ship. Also it will kill every person who is not on the deck.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  118. @Autochthon

    The naval threat posed by China and Russia is not to amphibious assault ships, but to aircraft carriers: that was the context of our illuminating discussion.

    You sound like you might be an Admiral.
    Have a happy New Year, and I salute you sir.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  119. Vidi says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Ukraine just got $3 billion worth of new money from Russia

    For how long will the Ukraine be allowed to keep the $2.9 billion? I would not be surprised that one stipulation of the contract requires the repayment of the $3 billion loan that Russia gave the Ukraine in 2013. So the $2.9 billion (or whatever) from the new agreement goes right back to Russia. Which is why I say that the UKraine isn’t getting any new money.

    Of course, the Ukies could refuse (again) to repay the loan. In that case, they’ll get no gas (and no gas transit fee). As Lavrov stated that Nordstream 2 will be finished, Russia can afford to let the Ukies freeze this winter.

    very lucrative transit contract.

    How lucrative the transit fee will be remains to be seen. The entire value of the first year of gas will be about $5 billion; the Ukraine will get only a fraction of that.

  120. Vidi says:
    @Autochthon

    You reckon the Iranians have figured out how to keep their missiles from chasing chaff instead of hitting their intended targets?

    I doubt Saudi processors of oil are very mobile. And they are large enough that even inertial navigation will be good enough to hit them, so chaff will be irrelevant.

    Why are you invoking Saudi Arabia in a discussion about the military capabilities of the U.S.A. and Iran stemming from an assertion Iranian forces can easily molest American ships and, earlier still, about the viability of carriers?

    Because anyone can see that Iran’s most lucrative targets, and by far, will be in Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait), not in the Persian Gulf, if war should happen. This obvious fact is probably what is deterring such a war.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  121. Antares says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia will aid Iran but not for the reasons of fear of being “next”. Even Russia’s General Staff forecast through 2050 sees no major conflict between major powers. As per US getting embroiled in full blown war in Iran, that may mark the end (literally, disintegration due to political upheaval) of the United States. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will look like a vacation in comparison.

    No country can survive on its own and US will (and already does) take out surrounding powers one by one. Also, that full blown war may come in a form that is unrecognisable as such. Better not wait for it. For now I see them win at every step (except Crimea and Turkey).

    1) Liberate Syria and Iraq. This will send a clear signal: we are a side one can choose for.
    2) Stop the war in Yemen.
    3) Support the Philippines visibly.
    4) Empower South America.
    5) Convert US proxies (see 1).
    6) Align India and Europe.
    7) Unite North and South Korea.
    8) Oust the US from Africa and Australia.

    All continents have to be aligned against the US and Israel. Once they have no worldwide military and economic power left they will succumb.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  122. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Gravitational forces increase the penetration force of the missile. I would guess that explosion happens inside the body of the ship. In my opinion it will disable any ship. Also it will kill every person who is not on the deck.

    I have no idea of what the kinetic impact will be when a missile, with a speed of mach 10/12/21 slams into a ship, but I read somewhere, at certain speeds a warhead is redundant. Andrei will correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  123. Realist says:
    @Autochthon

    Please do elaborate on how you reckon things have changed since 1988 in a way that disfavours the United States Navy. (Take your time. I’ll wait….)

    There is not a chance I will do your homework for you. If you have not keep up with world events…I’m not going to do it for you, you’re obnoxious.

    • Replies: @Realist
  124. @Antares

    No country can survive on its own and US will (and already does) take out surrounding powers one by one.

    In related news, US “taking out” of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria one by one produced one after another the most spectacular failures by the US. Just for your profound thoughts on geopolitics–Russia is the only nation (not even China) in the world which can with probability 100% in case of war (see. Russia’s military doctrine, issue of 2014) and threat to Russia’s existence wipe the United States off the map–literally. US trying to fight Iran in combined arms operation will see political crisis in US, ungovernable and demoralized as it is now, on a completely new level, which may even make Vietnam era look like a stroll in the park. The United States can not take the scale of losses it will sustain in a REAL war in Iran, let alone if it will decide to “fight” Russia conventionally. Well, Russia can wreck havoc in US proper even without nuclear weapons, purely conventionally. So, yes, Russia can survive even on her own. China may not, but Russia can–as they say in real estate business: location, location, location (c). This, plus loaded 12-gauge Mossberg at home, just in case.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  125. @Desert Fox

    It is totally within your rights.

  126. @Daniel Rich

    if I’m wrong

    You are not wrong, it is just that targeting system of Kinzhal consists of correlative optical channel (it is capable of selection of targets based on data base) plus in addition to some newer iteration of active radar homing 9B918 (originally it is from Iskander, Kinzhal version is newer)–a combination which is basically impervious to any jamming with existing and perspective means. Per pure energy (even without explosives) it is easy: Ek=0.5(mv^2). It varies directly as the square of the velocity. Even without explosives one can only imagine what kind of vaporization will happen at the area of impact. To demonstrate it–slamming at Mach=10 into the target by hypersonic missile produces 100+ times more energy on impact than it would have been if say LRASM with booster would hit the target. With explosives, a single hit becomes catastrophic even for such target as nuclear aircraft carrier. I cannot even imagine dynamic loads the ship will experience throughout the hull upon the hit. The effect on personnel which survives primary elements will be devastating. I know, I saw what a hit of inert (and fully armed) old P-6/35 traveling at Mach=1.2-1.3 did to animals in cages located at the bow and stern of the 3,000 ton destroyer. Dynamic loads produced by even inert missile slamming into the middle of a destroyer saw massive organ failures and death among pigs and goats.

    Here is what small and very light armed Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (subsonic, Mach <1 ) does to decommissioned frigate:

    Now imagine 10 times heavier, with 4 times the explosives missile traveling at Mach=10.

    • Thanks: Daniel Rich
  127. @Andrei Martyanov

    The United States can not take the scale of losses it will sustain in a REAL war in Iran

    I’m not so sure about that. I expected Iraq to do far better in 2003 but it just folded over quickly. And Iran was about on a par with Iraq in their 1980’s war. And if the idea is to weaken Iran with a bombing campaign and spread chaos, I can’t see why it can’t be done. So if Saudi and some Gulf states suffer some damage is that really going to bother US and their Israeli masters much?

  128. @Commentator Mike

    I’m not so sure about that

    I am. So is Colonel Douglas Macgregor and many Pentagon planners.

    • Replies: @Antares
    , @gmachine1729
  129. Mefobills says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Perfect example of why universal suffrage democracy must and will always fail. Monetary history is replete with oligarchs and plutocrats working as an in group to self agrandize. There is always hierarchy and everyone’s gaze should fall on how the King is selected and installed. In my opinion the natural order is a King beholden to the greater population and at war with the power grabbing psycopaths that are internal to a population. In other words the internal enemy… The parasite is much more a threat than imaginary external boogey men.

    As Putin’s staff has said, they need 180. 180 devoted leaders and high quality managers, and that is proving difficult. The selection process for the 180 has to deny parastoids or your civilization is done for. The history of the US is one of privateers usurping power and is an object lesson on what not to do.

  130. Mefobills says:
    @Commentator Mike

    And Iran is on par with Iraq in the 1980?

    That statement is divorced from reality.

    Iran is much larger and more easily defended. It is populated by high IQ people who have built up indigenous capability.

    Iran also will be supported by Russia and China. Iran is central crossroad for belt and road.

    If ZOG takes on Iran it will be the end of Zion. When was the last time Zion’s golem (the US) showed the ability to power project millions of foot soldiers necessary to take and hold Iran while simultaneously being denied air cover?

    Will the degraded fat multiculti population of the US volunteer to serve as foot soldiers in Iran?

    The Golem is reduced to providing air cover for a mercenary army like that of Isis.

    We saw with our own eyes how easily a small Russian contingent in Syria defeated ZOGs psycopathic plans.

  131. vot tak says:

    Part 3 on saker’s article.

    “So how good was/is the Kuznetsov?…What is certain, however, is that she is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers,”

    The author doesn’t specify his reasoning for this blanket statement, but in war capabilities, he is clearly talking nonsense.

    All it takes is one Granit, or one Su-33 or MiG-29K successfully launching an airborne missile, to end any usn carrier’s offensive career. It’s not so much numbers of aircraft carried, but whether a sufficient number would be able to get through through the opponents defenses. The usn has no realistic counter to modern surface to surface missiles and their f-18 and f-35 aircraft are no match for experienced piloted Russian Sukhois and MiGs.

    The thing is Russians balance their ship designs so they are not helpless when alone or things go awry. The usn doesn’t do this. There is no usn carrier even remotely capable in the manner an Admiral Kuznetsov is in this respect. The usn carriers are all wholly dependent on their escorts and aircraft. They have no realistic way to engage in combat otherwise.

    Perhaps the author had another meaning in mind when stating the Admiral Kuznetsov is “no match” for usn carriers? That of bloated maintenence and operating costs. ;-D

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  132. Consider the lessons of Ho Chi Minh and Bin Laden (if you believe the official version). You defeat the Empire with asymmetrical warfare. Building air craft carriers is the opposite of asymmetrical warfare. If you believe the official version about Bin Laden, he made the Empire outspend him by 100,000 to 1.

  133. Trend!
    Always watch the trend.
    There are demonstration around US embassy in Baghdad.
    Fires and throwing stones.
    Not very serious at this time yet.
    Trend

  134. @Mefobills

    I hope you are right. But I contend that ZOG doesn’t care to win, to weaken is enough. Look at Syria now as compared to when it was able to project power and its army controlled Lebanon. US didn’t really win much in Iraq either but plunged the country into chaos and instability with terrorists roaming in both countries. They’d be happy with something like that in Iran, or even less, to keep Israel happy. We’ll see.

  135. Realist says:
    @Realist

    Should read…If you have not kept up…

  136. @Mefobills

    Agree, Russia will not let Iran fall, and if the ZUS attacks Iran the ZUS will have crossed the Rubicon.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  137. @Commentator Mike

    Zionists are demons from hell, they have destroyed both America and the mideast for Israel.

  138. Antares says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I am. So is Colonel Douglas Macgregor and many Pentagon planners.

    If they are so sure about that (attacking Iran directly would fail) than they will surely try something else.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  139. Mefobills says:
    @Commentator Mike

    But I contend that ZOG doesn’t care to win, to weaken is enough.

    I believe strategy above works for ZOG – the empire of Chaos, but it won’t work in Iran’s case.

    Why? The petrodollar/dollar as reserve. 1973 Saudi Agreement. (Saudi is to sell oil in dollars, and recycle said dollars into TBills and Western Banks. Said reserve notes are to be held as reserves in Western Corporate Banks. Saudi is disallowed from having their own bourse.)

    Evidence? Iran through their Hezbollah or Houthi proxy showed they could penetrate into Saudi and disrupt Saudi oil production.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/14/major-saudi-arabia-oil-facilities-hit-by-drone-strikes

    ZOG’s tap-root, which funds their planning is state sponsored usury. Usury pipeline is via private banking, where (((they))) are stock-owners. U.S. dollar is not a U.S. note, it is a Federal Reserve Note, and all of the private credit emitting banks (corporations) are linked together through reserve loops and special facilities to do swaps and co-ordinate on exchange rates.

    Somewhere at top of ZOG’s pryamid are some very smart people who understand exactly what I am saying and know that Saudi and Petrodollar are the exposed nerve. The other exposed nerve is legislation that converts the money power via new law, back to national sovereignty.

    http://www.sovereingmoney.eu

    The golem attacks Iran, then Iran immediately attacks U.S. forward bases in the region, and also disrupts Saudi oil refineries.

    ZOG was in Syria as part of the great game, to help Qatar steal gas from shared field with Iran. Qatar and Saudi funded much of the Syrian operation, and recycled petrodollars back through CIA to MIC, to then buy ISIS weapons.

    Saudi and Qatar are component parts of Zion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pars/North_Dome_Gas-Condensate_field

    Everything breaks down for our (((friends))) when you go after their money power – as that is the tap root.

  140. Mefobills says:
    @Mefobills

    To then buy weapons for ISIS – the mercenary army.

    With regards to U.S. air-force providing air cover in Syria; that took a lot of hoaxing and propaganda to bamboozle the American and Western peoples, via the owned media.

    In U.S. TV and print, (and radio in many markets) became (((owned))) with cross-directorates after Clinton’s 1996 telecommunication act. Clinton in turn was a CFR agent installed by ZOG.

    (Cross directorates are cross ownership in media and markets as they own shares in each other, and sit on each other’s boards. Reuters is the central news feed.)

    This controlling of the money and owning the message is coming apart for them. Their plans are failing worldwide.

    If ZOG has the hubris to believe their own propaganda, then that will trip them onto their face as they are already wobbling. The latest round in IRAQ shows just how out of control they are at the moment.

  141. Lol says:

    I don’t see aircraft carriers as the unstoppable force American naval doctrine gives them, but having a couple can act as a naval force multiplier when deployed in conjunction with other ships and offer more tactical options. However I don’t think a country really needs more than two per ocean they have access to.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  142. wraith67 says:

    The carrier wasn’t there (Syria) to launch fighters, it had a substantial contingent of capable SAMs on it.

  143. @Mefobills

    Fair enough but didn’t much of this hold before the US war on Iraq? It didn’t hold the US back then. In the first Gulf War during Desert Storm, Saddam did some major damage with the oil fires, the oil spill, the Scuds on Israel, the precision bombing of the US base at Dhahran. The US is now even in a better position with control of both Iraq and Afghanistan on either sides of Iran. I wouldn’t say that Iran is now in a stronger position than Iraq in 2003. But let’s see.

  144. Mefobills says:

    Fair enough but didn’t much of this hold before the US war on Iraq?

    Things have changed since the war on Iraq.

    The U.S. mobilized its own troops and troops from 35 nations in first gulf war.

    Part of the 73 agreement is that Saudi is protected by the fifth fleet, to then allow oil tanker safe passage. Saudi gets front line military gear, including AWACs. The command and control structure of Saudi is integrated into American system. Saudi pilots and military train for NATO tactics. Saudi is allowed to cartelize (monopoly).

    For war in Iran, it will take a massive psy-op to make American sheeple want to line up and volunteer to become cannon fodder in Iran.

    Saudi has been running low on TBills, as panama papers revealed, and is why Saudi Aramaco is up for sale. Qatar will not be able to under-sell Russia with a gas pipeline across Syria to Europe. Nordstream is practically a done deal, and ZOG lost. This means that funding for Takfiri Isis mercenary ground troops is drying up.

    I find it extremely unlikely that Saudi or Qatar, or even Turkey will fund or be able to fund a new Sunni Takfiri army to invade Iran. It is unlikely that Turkey or even Iraq will allow American air-power to be based in their countries for the purpose of attacking Iran. Already, Turkey would like American’s gone, especially after the Coup attempt failed on Erdogan in 2016.

    Then you have to factor in the fact that Iran will devastate Saudi oil production, and will devastate oil shipping, which will put the western world into an economic tailspin. The 1973 ZOG agreement with Saudi comes under pressure, as Saudi looks for security guarantees from Russia. Already, Saudi has been making noises about acquiring S-400’s.

    Iraq never had enough military power to knock out Saudi oil fields, especially after ZOG intervention in Gulf War. Iraq’s ability was in massing of tanks, and tanks can be taken out easy enough. Iran will use smart missiles and drones, for which there is no defense. They have already proven themselves capable.

    There are multiple pillars making ZOG parasitic construct work. These pillars include Atlanticism, Rim Theory, and private bank credit hypothecation of credit. Military power of ZOG is used to control the rim and to enforce debt contracts. Military power must be expeditionary and offensive in nature….. hence air-craft carriers as force projection.

    These pillars are all crumbling or weaker now than they were before gulf wars. ZOG enters into Iran, and it is the end. It is a step too far, and our (((friends))) are known for over-stepping their bounds. They don’t know what the limits are, because they are children of the lie.

    ZOG may well enter Iran. The minimum casualty will be U.S. is lost as a Golem, and exiting dollars by countries world wide is accelerated, to bring about faster collapse.

  145. @Giuseppe

    Mimicking true conservatives, neoconservatives built their reputations for defending American traditional values. Laurent Guyenot: From Yahweh To Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations

    An excellent comment about neocons. What every American should know about them is: most maybe 98% are dual citizens, they are fake patriots, they create lies (Iraqi WMD’s) to steer America into conflicts that only benefit Israel, many are direct descendants of Russian and Polish immigrants who were followers of Leon Trotsky, their Think Tanks create fake reports designed to bloat America’s military budget, their hidden goal is t0 make the Yinon plan for a greater Israel happen, they are not incapable of creatiing false flags (like 911) to keep America embroiled in perpetual wars in the Middle East, and they care not how many Americans die as a result of their fakery.

  146. @SeekerofthePresence

    China’s remarkable growth is due to their State Banking System,

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  147. Mefobills says:
    @the grand wazoo

    So you can compare what’s happening in China today with what happened to the American economy after 2008. Henry Liu and others have written about why China cannot really go broke as a result of its debt. The reason is that if a corporation in China is unable to repay its debt to the government-owned bank, then the government-owned bank has a choice: It can either write down the debt and leave the corporation functioning, working with its employees and being productive. Or, it can do what a US bank would do: foreclose on the loan, drive the company under, and have it sold at the distressed price to a corporate raider or vulture fund. China doesn’t throw the companies over to the corporate raiders or vulture funds.

    https://www.unz.com/mhudson/immr-coffeehouse-discussion-forum-8/

    AND

    The margin between what the government gets and what the bank charges remains to be set, and also the ability of the government to write down the bank loan made with the government funding. That is how China has financed its huge industrial take off.

    In other words, China channels state credit into industry. This then creates industrial capability, which then multiplies the labor value of its population.

    China’s system is actually the “American System of Economy” with a slight twist. In the U.S before the bankster take-over in 1913, it was Treasury that spent into the commons and industry. Private banks had to carry their reserves in Lincoln Greenbacks or T-Bills, and hence were controlled to not emit too much bad bank credit.

    Yes, China’s remarkable growth is due to their state banking system. It also got a boost by Wall Street, which sold-off America’s patrimony in order to take wage arbitrage. (The wage value of debt free former communist labor vs American labor.)

    We can see now that the wage arbitrage will go on forever as China is permanently efficient due to their superior monetary system, which has fewer rents and rake-offs of to a predatory finance sector.

  148. @Mefobills

    Iran is much larger and more easily defended. It is populated by high IQ people who have built up indigenous capability.

    Very true.

    Additionally, the Iraqi army fought for a ruthless dictator, the Iranian army defends the motherland. As I’m not familiar with Iran’s military capability, I will refrain from speculating on it, but my gut feeling tells me, the outcome of military scrimmages will be bad for any attacker.

  149. @Commentator Mike

    But I contend that ZOG doesn’t care to win, to weaken is enough.

    I think to some degree you’re right. However, what will happen in the US when Canadian forces amass at the border and begin to invade US proper [stop laughing!!!]?

    It’s said for the world to unite, we need an ‘outside force’ that threatens to destroy our planet [with ‘us’ as collateral damage on it], Will this be applicable to the above painted scenario?

  150. @Desert Fox

    …if the ZUS attacks Iran the ZUS will have crossed the Rubicon.

    Both countries will make sure the FUKZUS ‘war’ machine drowns in it.

  151. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Antares

    They are running low on options these days

  152. @Andrei Martyanov

    Any chance you can send me an electronic version of your The Real Revolution in Military Affairs? I bought it on Kindle but apparently actually being able to log into it on mobile is a pain where I am.

    gmachine1729 at foxmail.com

    Curious how many copies your last book and this has sold.

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  153. @gmachine1729

    Read it through Kindle PC client. Great book!

    Lol Osimov-Lanchester reminds me of Popov-Marconi. My Russian friend had told me that in Russia, it’s Popov who invented the radio.

    What are your thoughts on Nobel bias against Russians/Soviets. And the MOSFET transistor, the basis of modern day transistors, was invented by an Egyptian and Korean in 1959 at Bell Labs, but they didn’t get the prize. Maybe Zionism operating behind the scenes there, who knows.

  154. The natural place for Russian carriers are 1) the breakers or if there are no bids for the junk, 2) the bottom of whatever body of water that the piece of crap last broke down in.

    Very simple

  155. @SeekerofthePresence

    So, what do you reckon happens after a scenario wherein all twenty (or eleven, if you wish to exclude LHDs and LHAs; I don’t mind) American carriers are destroyed by a missile? Heck, what do you reckon happens if even one is destroyed?

    I’m genuinely interested in your hypothesis, because while much of these discussions about the vulnerabilities of naval vessels to missiles disregards actual practice (ignoring the Aegis system, combat air patrols, carrier strike groups other fail-safes (from escorts including destroyers, submarines, constantly aloft Hawkeyes, etc.) – they none of them address the equally critical question of risk (aftermath). In many a game of chess, it may be easy enough to capture the opponent’s queen – but if that opponent be wise – in short order the glee at taking the queen is followed in short order by checkmate.

    What happens if a CVN is destroyed by, say, a Chinese missile? This is a sincere question. How do you reckon the American navy and air force will respond? What do you reckon public sentiment in America will be? What do you reckon the economic and political ramifications will be for the Chinese? How do you reckon NATO and its member nations will respond?

    (I encourage you to refer to the events of December 7, 1941; August 6, 1945; and August 9, 1945 for reference, though you will perhaps consider them hopelessly “outdated.”)

  156. @Lol

    Carrier strike groups are like RAM – one can never have too many (much) – if they can be afforded financially, of course.

  157. @Vidi

    Your points are mostly valid, but they’ve no bearing on American naval superiority. For my part, I could not care less about Saudi Arabia, and if the entire nation were reduced to smoking rubble, the U.S. Navy would still control the Persian Gulf if it were tasked to do so, maintaining freedom of the seas there as elsewhere.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS