Russia don't have much use for a carrier. They don't have island territories that are far from mainland. Whereas Falklands, Reunion, Guam are more than 10,000 km from British mainland, French mainland, US mainland, all Russian islands are within 2000 km from Russian mainland. So carrier is not necessarily.
That's a defensive mindset about CBGs and CBGs are best utilised as offensive assets or for deterrence. The object of a CBG is sea control and to attack land targets from the sea. It isn't global or even regional sea control, but local sea control and that forces your enemy to do things differently.
The powerful Chinese navy is also crucial to the defense of the Southern Kurils, should Japan decide to attack ala Argentine British war in 1982 at Falklands. Hopefully cool heads prevail and it won't come to that.
Depends on personal opinion. Some people prefer carriers, some people prefer big gun battleships, so to speak. Deterrence depends on the weapons of the ships, be they aircraft or missiles, rather than on how big the ships are.
Still like this? Laid down in 2016 and it seems that in February 2019 the technical readiness of the lead vessel reached just 12%. Reading Feanors posts this whole 20386 project is a waste of money, maybe at this state its better to convert it in a 20385, at this point it still should be possible.Latest photos show Mercury class corvette is barely under construction despite laid down years ago.
Russia and China are basically the modern equivalent of Germany and Japan in the 30s. Both considering they deserve a place under the sun. Also because both have beef with Japan regarding territorial disputes at Southern Kurils and Diaoyu island, respectively.
It has to be informed opinion based upon facts and information beyond just the basic platform data. What are the CONOPS, strategy, political imperatives, capability requirements etc.? All of that and much more has to be taken into account.
For naval forces an offensive mindset can often be beneficial even to the weaker side, provided they structure their forces well. A smaller force of capable and faster ships can do quite a lot by operating aggressively at sea. Sitting at port or operating defensively can actually be a disadvantage as the ships are potentially easier to find, and consequently sink. Task forces of larger warships can also be a tougher nut to crack, meaning that once found you have to throw more at them. The emphasis here is of course on task forces, lone dinosaurs, no matter how capable, are still quite vulnerable.
If Russia wants to fight for the Kurils, Russia has to be able to engage the Japanese at sea, not just curl up into a spiky ball like a hedgehog. That requires robust anti-submarine capabilities, the ability to put together at least a couple of taskforces of large surface combatants (at the same time). A large carrier with several fighter squadrons and fixed wing AEW would go a long way towards improving on that (a modern MPA would too). Alternatively Russia may be faced with the unfortunate situation of either having to resort to nuclear options or face a conventional defeat. On the flip side Japan does not currently seem aggressively inclined. This could always change, but it would be a quite different world, and a move like that by Japan would set all kinds of precedents and open all kinds of doors for other countries to act aggressively including China. And while Russia and China are certainly not formal allies, nor do I think China would go to war with Japan over the Kurils, China might see this as a good time to make their own moves.
Ukraine signed a whole bucket of naval contracts for small missile boats, patrol boats, and now corvettes. Is there money for all of this? Somehow I have my doubts. And while some countries may be generous with defense loans to Ukraine for political reasons, I'm not sold that the Turks will be. The Ukrainian navy today is a sad joke, hardly worthy of the name "navy". If they somehow fund this giant re-armament and field the ships, there's still the question of operating costs. We shall see what happens, but I suspect the Black Sea Fleet will gets its first 22350 before Ukraine gets its first Turkish corvette.
Japan is an island nation skilled in the art of sea battle. Russia won't fight Japan at sea the way it did in the 1904 war which ended badly for Russia. Instead, Russia will use Tu-22M3M anti ship strategic bombers based at the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky airport to fight Japanese ships at Southern Kurils. These bombers can strike ships from beyond 600 km away using Kh-32, outside the engagement envelope of F-35B and Aegis destroyers. While Japan can expect early success, it is unlikely Japan can hold onto Southern Kurils. It would be very similar to how the Falklands war unfolded. China will mostly likely stay neutral and go after Taiwan while everyone else is distracted.
Incorrect to say Russia and Japan are at war. While it is true they haven't signed a symbolic peace treaty, war was officially ended in 1956 treaty.
I take it back then. But if Japan decided to take the islands by force, would they be starting a war with Russia?Incorrect to say Russia and Japan are at war. While it is true they haven't signed a symbolic peace treaty, war was officially ended in 1956 treaty.
Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It could be undeclared war like 1982 Argentina Britain war. Battle but not officially war. These days countries hardly ever declare war like they used to.
Could Russia declare war if Japan started an undeclared war? And how significant would that be?
Wikipedia isn't a valid reliable source. A peace treaty is not symbolic at all. It is a legal document in international law which stipulates that the participating parties have agreed to ended the state of wwar that has existed between them.Incorrect to say Russia and Japan are at war. While it is true they haven't signed a symbolic peace treaty, war was officially ended in 1956 treaty.
Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 - Wikipedia