Speaking of stop-gap carriers and standardisation, in the long-run (i.e. post-2035) I wouldn’t be surprised if Liaoning and/or her sister end up serving in the Pakistani Navy while construction for PLAN rolls on.

The rapid refits of older ships

I think the refits of older ships are more a reflection of the rapid pace of advancement over the previous decade. When the Sovs were introduced to PLAN they were the biggest and best ships China had. Barely a decade later, they’re almost a burden.

I expect that all pre-052C/054/056 combatants will be retired by 2030.

It seems to be accepted wisdom here that the Typhoon is no good because it’s so expensive. Both the pro US posters and French posters seem to have come to a cosy accommodation on this.

Sounds like the shared Chinese/American view that T-50 is garbage, or the shared American/Russian view that China is just a nation of copycats.

Everyone plays their silly nationalistic games. My favourites are the ones where Americans disagree with themselves, e.g. trying to reconcile “if it ain’t VLO it’s garbage” with spending billions upgrading non-VLO fighters for another 20 years of operation.

It would be quite funny if Australia took the opportunity to be an all F-35 force now that the F-35 is near Block 3F and the prices have stabilized.

I could get behind that, but I don’t think it could happen before our vanilla F/A-18s have been replaced by F-35s sometime in the 2020s, probably too late for this batch for Canada, though if they went all in on the SH platform later…

For a medium size navy a CTOL carrier can be in the end more a burden than a liability
Let’s compare them with us (Italy) as an example: we have a similar if not identical destroyer/frigate line and 1+1 STOL carriers (and we have not to split it in Mediterranean and Atlantic).
Difference is that while our own medium ships are conceived to operate indipendently one from the other (Aster 30 on frigates, more capable radars, Strales CIWS systems, medium calibre main gun, task force command room in each ship…) while their own are bound to operate in group.
So their fleet end up to be at carrier service instead than the contrary without adding so much more capabilities to justify the effort when compared to our own flat decks.

Indeed; the Italian vs. French Navy comparison is really quite unfavourable to the latter when one considers the extra resources the French are working with.

My philosophy is to limit ambitions (the scope of national interest) and then ensure one can robustly execute within that limited scope. If you can’t do it well, don’t do it at all. And of course, a single carrier is incapable of doing anything well.

Both the French and British Navies today fall into the category of nations trying to write cheques they can’t cash (and hoping that nobody calls them out on it), and we all know why that is. Perhaps Italy was fortunate that its foray into empire-building was comparatively brief and disastrous — makes it easier to let go. 😉

I don’t see how carriers can provide flexibility as massive resources are needed to protect them and they still need friendly ports to maintain on voyages. it can create a lot of dependency on so called allies.

Aircraft carriers can be sensible investments for some nations — such as the United States. United Kingdom, or China — without necessarily being a sensible investment for Russia. And yes, the resources required to effectively protect aircraft carriers are certainly one of factors contributing to the cost-benefit analysis of owning and operating them.

France is another nation that might be better served by alternate solutions, e.g. long-range strike aircraft.

you have to look it how inefficient are carriers. months of preparation for pitfull sorties with small bombs/missiles. and many ships tied to protect them in narrow seas like Mediterranean. its better to spend on cruise missile carrying aircraft for round the clock operations.

Of course carriers are inefficient compared to land-based aircraft. Their strength lies in their flexibility. The question is if Russia really needs aircraft carriers given (a) her geographical proximity to most conceivable conflict zones (b) her comparatively unfavourable naval geography where e.g. Baltic, Mediterranean, Pacific theatres are separated by enormous distances and (c) the high level of resources required to achieve a robust carrier capability and the other uses to which those resources could be put.

But projects like Tu-160M2, the interceptor pipe dream, every single new transport (past Il-112), etc, will be huge money sinks and really need to be rationalized along necessity and luxury.

Admiral Kuznetsov & future carrier plans: luxury & surplus to requirements.

No I don’t really expect them to get rid of Admiral Kuznetsov, rather the Navy will hang on by its fingernails and hope for a replacement until the bottom rusts through. But for God’s sake, this is absolutely the time to make some real decisions about what is needed and what is not in light of realistic assessments of resources going forward and with a clear-eyed view of core national interests. Here’s hoping Putin et al. have the foresight to make such decisions and the fortitude to push them through against entrenched interest groups.

But I imagine in such circumstances, the future will see a lot of modernization of current systems. Already talk of Armata’s tech will be placed in T-72’s and T-90’s as well as the upgrade path for BTR-80’s is this indication. I also imagine that the current large fleet of Su-27’s will see them be modernized to Su-27SM3 or some newer standard that will be superior to what is flown now.

You have to be kidding me. Modernising “current” (read: 1980s) systems in the 2020s? I think I just threw up in my mouth.