Potential new Russian Carriers - a change in strategy?

[JamesT73J]

From the article on the front page:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070731/70008268.html

The meat of the article reveals that - in fact - six new carriers are merely hyphothetical, and that only the facilities to make something of that displacement are being made.

Nevertheless, were even one to be built it would signify a change in thinking. Carrier-based aviation historically has been neglected compared to the United States (much the same as it has in Britain). Is the Russian surface fleet looking to become a true strategic blue-water player?

What do subsimmers think?

James

[Konovalov]

Interesting article.

Certainly it appears a more visable means of power projection rather than having loads of nuclear submarines running around. Seems to be part of a confident and assertive new Russia under Putin.

[Dmitry Markov]

Personally, I think a couple of nuke carriers are essential for our country just for demonstration of the Flag and so on. But they mean to build SIX to have couple of them active and others refitting / repairing. Sounds nice, but I hope they would build good bases and infrastrucutre for those carriers first. And of course I hope they would build good homes for sailors and officers. So there won`t be mistakes made by builders of previous two Russian ocean fleets ( Imperial one 1880-1905 and the Soviet one 1960-1990) when they launched lot of ships without bases and infrastructure (some good and up-to-date soviet subs were decomissioned just because they couldn't have been repaired at their stations). Nice if it would be more Peter I`s and Katherine The Great`s way.

Best Regards & Good Luck

Dmitry Markov

[AntEater]

I suppose the focus on carrier aviation is also because despite all that is written in our press these days, the role of the russian navy changed. Today it is general power projection, not defense of the russian coast against a superior sea power (either the UK or the US). Gorshkov realized that it was pointless for the USSR to produce a similar fleet than the US Navy because of the overwhelming advantage the US had in operating carriers. Not only in sheer numbers, but in combat experience, doctrine, building experience, trained pilots and personell and everything else. So he adopted an assymetric defensive approach focused on land based aviation, the cruise missile and submarines. The central problems of the soviet fleet in the cold war were "how to protect our missile submarines" and "how to kill a US carrier". Every ship in the Red Fleet was designed for these purposes. Now the new russian missile subs apparently are technologically advanced enough to simply vanish in the vastness of an ocean, as western boomers do. That's why they are all deployed to the Pacific instead of the northern fleet. Also, the russian navy has declared some of the Oscar cruise missile submarines surplus, and as the Oscar is primarily a carrier killer, it seems this mission is no longer the focus of the russian navy. Before, a conventional carrier was frowned upon because the soviets realized it wouldnt last five minutes in a shooting war with NATO. Today, it seems the goal is really similar to Peter the Great's: Just to build a fleet in order to join the club of seagoing world powers. In Peter's time, he had to build wooden ships of the line as the ultima ratio of sea power, today, this is the aircraft carrier. Ironically, the very ship named after Peter is in quite some ways a white elephant now, the newest Kirov class nuclear cruiser.

[Jimbuna]

Even if it becomes the second largest navy in the world I don't see Russia ever challenging America in numerical or capability terms

I doubt they'll have the resources or infrastructure to maintain six carriers. If they do, it will probably be at the expense of a fair old number of subs

[Steel_Tomb]

What is the point? Russia has nothing to gain by projecting its power abroad. Aye, prehaps it could do with a few more ships. But the millions, perhaps billions could be better spent improving the living conditions of every day Russians, and generally improving the country as a whole. When will the russians learn that a large military doesn't get it respect world wide, infact seems to make them frowned upon because the government is so militaristic in its ways.

[CptSimFreak]

So Russia will build new carriers for China and India? Hmmm

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

What is the point? Russia has nothing to gain by projecting its power abroad. Aye, prehaps it could do with a few more ships. But the millions, perhaps billions could be better spent improving the living conditions of every day Russians, and generally improving the country as a whole. When will the russians learn that a large military doesn't get it respect world wide, infact seems to make them frowned upon because the government is so militaristic in its ways.

Have to agree with you there matey

[Kapitan]

The best carriers the russians ever made were the kiev class but they went over themselves with the kuznetsov which has alot of flaws in it.

[Tchocky]

Well that depends on what you design them for.

Personally, I don't see the need. Russia is already one of the world's biggest arms dealers, and even with that cash there are still major social problems that need fixin'.

Bake-sales for carriers I say!

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The best carriers the russians ever made were the kiev class but they went over themselves with the kuznetsov which has alot of flaws in it.

I would disagree. I won't know exactly how many design flaws the Kuznetsov has compared to the Kiev, but least the Kuznetsov's fighters, as a combat unit, are actually at least somewhat useful. Those POS Yak-38s basically can't defend and can't attack - all that space that went to them might as well have gone to extra heloes and a navalized S-200F system... in other words, it is a complete failure as a concept.

Real blame, of course, should be to Ustinov. Maybe his ideas about a "cost-effective" V/STOL carrier could be somewhat valid in the 90s with the Yak-141 and then a JSF like craft (maybe even a Harrier), but with Yak-38s? What is he smoking? If he doesn't like carriers just ban the whole darn proposal and put more money on subs or ground-based naval aviation or soemthing.

[AntEater]

I suppose you have to see the Kievs not as carriers, but really as what they were called by the Soviets: Cruisers. Within their purpose, the Kievs could perform well: They could keep the operating areas of the soviet SSBNs clean. The real limit was the Yak-38. A shame the Yak-141 was not developed fully. Today, it could have been an export hit with nations who want VTOL capability but do not want to be part in the JSF ripoff sheme. But a Yak-38 could still shoot down a P-3 or Nimrod and that was all that was really required.

[Kapitan]

That is true the requirements of russia are far diffrent than the ones of the UK and britian, the kiev is an aircraft carrying cruiser as the moskva class were helicopter cruisers the requiremt of the kievs were to keep the SSBNs safe from air threats and also provide cover for a battle group.

the big down fall with the kuznetsov class is that they dont have catapults which means the aircraft have to burn fuel heavily to take off which means it decreases this air time.

Also the kievs were fully capible of handeling Mig 29's and SU27's provided they were not fully loaded.

The biggest mistake they ever did make was cancelling the ulyonsk class carriers they would have been comparable to the nimitz class!

[AntEater]

The Kievs still had potential, as is highlighted by the neverending India/Gorshkov story. I suppose the endless delays have more to do with the detiriorating material condition of the Gorshkov than with design flaws. In the end it might have been cheaper and faster for the indians to have ordered a new carrier to a modified Kiev design at a russian shipyard But I suppose the loadout limitations will apply to the indian MiG-29s as well, so that the Vikra...somthing will be a purely defensive vessel. I've always wondered about indians and carriers anyway, as every target in Pakistan is well within range of land based aviation. So I suppose the carrier is just to be regarded as a big boy among international navies. But it surely seems that currently everybody and his dog is getting at least some kind of aircraft carrier, even though it is mostly disguised as something else like "Helicopter destroyer", "joint support ship", "air defense vessel", "new major surface unit" or whatever...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

the big down fall with the kuznetsov class is that they dont have catapults which means the aircraft have to burn fuel heavily to take off which means it decreases this air time.

Not nessarly a downfall. There have been some US Carrier aircraft that could take off cat-less, like the S-2 Tracker. The Kiev's might have made a half way decent Anti-Boomer ship if the Russians had an equivlent to the S-2.

Also if the Russian's invested in a "Buddy Tanking" system or a dedcated tanker verson of the Flanker the extra fuel burned on take off wouldn't have mattered much except on interception missions.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

...in other words, it is a complete failure as a concept.

Well no it was a failure in execution not concept, remember that this concept was basicly used for the Royal Navy's CVH's minus the ASMs.