Kedmi explained why Russia does not see the point in building aircraft carriers

7 2021 June 15

Russia does not build aircraft carriers, giving preference to other types of weapons, including missiles, tanks, submarines, etc. Moscow's refusal to build aircraft carriers has its own explanation, and the militarypolitical analyst Yakov Kedmi on the Israeli TV channel ITON.TV.

Kedmi believes that Moscow does not see the point in aircraft-carrying groups, not only because of their high cost. Currently, aircraft carriers no longer have the destructive power that provides a strategic advantage on the battlefield. It is possible that several missile-armed submarines will destroy more units of the enemy military equipment and will cause more damage than one aircraft carrier.

What's on an aircraft carrier? Aircraft, the range of which without refueling in the air reaches 500-700 km. If this aircraft carrier can be sunk by a missile that it cannot intercept from a distance of 1-2 thousand kilometers, then what is the use of it?

- asks Kedmi.

Therefore, the expert believes, Russia still cannot decide whether it is worth spending money on the creation of heavy aircraft-carrying ships. In the meantime, the Kremlin is leaning in favor of building more nuclear submarines.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

-1

7 June 2021 14: 42

Pralna, Yasha, don't get us A-carriers!
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  7 June 2021 15: 24
  
  Wrong. Aircraft carrier cruisers needed
  1. Ulysses
    
    0
    
    8 June 2021 18: 04
    
    There are aircraft carriers
    There are cruisers. (different, depending on the purpose)
    "Aircraft-carrying cruisers" are from a series of "all-season tires".
    The undercruiser is the undercarrier.
    A waste of money for the budget, a "headache" for the military.
steelmaker

+2

7 June 2021 18: 59

I disagree with Kedmi. Aircraft carriers are high technology. And Russia is obliged to own high technologies. Therefore, a couple of pieces, Russia can afford.
1. bobba94
  
  0
  
  7 June 2021 22: 32
  
  Aircraft carriers are not high technology. This show-off ..... The States have it, the UK has it, China, India, France and Italy also have it, even Brazil has it. Are we worse than others, or what, we also want such a trick ...
  1. steelmaker
    
    +2
    
    7 June 2021 23: 40
    
    Aircraft carriers are not high technology. This is show-off ..
    
    Either the Chinese were offended that we did not share with them the technology of making steel for the deck! And there are such "show-offs" - above the deck!
2. margo
  
  0
  
  8 June 2021 17: 29
  
  And Russia is obliged to own high technologies
  
  - they are not, therefore, aircraft carriers are not needed, everything is simple.
shinobi

+1

8 June 2021 01: 23

Aircraft carriers are a relic of a bygone era. When the most long-range weapon was an airplane. The future belongs to multipurpose nuclear submarines and missile and cannon platforms. For continental powers, at least.
1. Gosha Smirnov
  
  +1
  
  8 June 2021 02: 26
  
  especially the stupid Chinese tell me about it
  1. shinobi
    
    0
    
    8 June 2021 08: 42
    
    And why? Let them spend. The later it comes, the better for us.
2. Bitter
  
  +1
  
  9 June 2021 09: 24
  
  It is the aircraft carriers with the escort detachment that are the "prototypes" of the notorious universal multipurpose platforms.
  1. shinobi
    
    +1
    
    10 June 2021 03: 52
    
    Well, I would not say that. In general, for a sample of such a prototype of a missile-gun platform, you can take the Missouri of late modernization. For long-range combat, axes with harpoons. For a close-range cannon. The Missouri generally showed itself well. Especially when striking the coast in amphibious operations. Equip it with hypersonic missiles and it would still turn out to be a sinister.
Gosha Smirnov

+2

8 June 2021 02: 35

Jacob is a good and smart Jew. And for a couple of bucks he will first justify and tell you exactly who killed Kennedy and for what, and if you throw in a couple more bucks, he will come to the logical conclusion that it was not his murder in reality, but a double and a special operation in order to stupidly identify the spy Oswald, who was hovering somewhere in a large mass of Americans, in this way. And even Kennedy and Monroe went on such a setup so that in this way they would die together of old age and away from prying eyes somewhere near Saratov.
Sergey Latyshev

0

8 June 2021 11: 57

Ah, cadmi again provokes, telling sweet lies ...

A well-deserved spy, he quietly worked with the top at the EBR, and now obviously with everyone at the GDP.
Alexzn

+1

8 June 2021 17: 50

Initially stupid analytics. Insular empires are, by definition, different from continental empires. In the modern world, aircraft carriers are needed only by island empires and superpowers to control transport arteries and as a gendarme in overseas territories. Russia is not a superpower, not an island empire, there are no overseas territories, the main resources are on its own territory - why, under such conditions, an aircraft carrier? It may not be a hindrance, but how justified are such expenses, and where to get the funds for it?
An aircraft carrier is an expensive pleasure and clearly not for global confrontation. Once again, this is the gendarme.