Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

The USNI is running a four part series on the Russian Federation Navy authored by Michael Kofman and Norman Polmar.
This Dec issue it's an overview of strategy and personnel and how the navy is changing to smaller ships and professional sailors.
The Jan issue will concentrate on the surface navy, the Feb issue in depth on the submarine force and the March issue will feature the Naval air forces.

 

[Haavarla]

The bulk of ordinance delivery by Russia in Syria has been by air, with arty coming in second. Definitely over 100 cruise missiles have been fired (probably closer to 200). Clearly a navy of frigates and light cruisers with Kalibr missiles can't make up for the capabilities provided by the Kuznetsov even in its current state. As for conflicts in remote places, never say never. The Russian military is working on expeditionary warfare capability. Why is a separate conversation but they've been making extra efforts for the past ~5 years or so training VDV units together with BDKs (775s mainly) for strategic mobility. They're working on an LHD. And the plan is to expand heavy and superheavy cargo-lift capability within the MoD for scenarios like the current one in Syria.

Right. The Kuznetsov really need a major overhaul, that much is clear. But in the meantime, for the moment, the only way forward is relying in first strike cruise missile, even getting them more efficient. Do we know what a Kalibr cost in terms of $? might be 1/2 or 1/3 the price of a Tomahawk.

And where is Russia on the LHD now, not even close i would say, with the missed Mistrals?

So that leaves Russia with having to rely for their AF and transport capabilities on Global force projection when their Navy is lacking.

 

[swerve]

Japan's Lethal 'Helicopter-Destroyer': An Aircraft Carrier in Disguise
The tilt-rotors r hybrid- both rotary & fixed wing. MV-22B on Korea ship Dokdo
The Chakri Naruebet could later get navalized J-39s or some other fighter- the potential is there. Italian G. Garibaldi
Cavour Trieste
Spanish Juan Carlos I Also, from back in 2013:Turkey selects Navantia's Juan Carlos LHD design as winner of its LPD tender As for RANCanberra, I agree with Feanor & couldn't say it better myself: Moreover, not just for wars, but to defend her interests- as TR said, "talk softly but carry a big stick!". Otherwise, the other UN Security Council members (not to mention others!) will not be taking Russia seriously.

Izumo & Kaga have the potential to be converted into STOVL carriers - but as built, they're not equipped for it. They're high-grade helicopter carriers. And Japan does not have any F-35B (the only STOVL aircraft on the market) on order or public plans to procure them. There are political barriers, though they're probably not insurmountable.

Spain - read what I wrote. I disagreed with the suggestion that Spain represented a growth in carriers, or anything new, not that Spain has nothing that can operate as a carrier (a limited one).

Italy - again, read what I wrote. You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say.

Chakri Naruebet is too small for navalised JAS39. She's the smallest Harrier carrier built, & too small for F-35B. She's an ex-carrier, now only a helicopter carrier.

Re. Dokdo - V-22 isn't a fixed-wing aircraft. Tilt-rotors are like a fancy helicopter, slow by the standards of prop-driven fixed-wing aircraft, let alone jets. Ability to carry V-22 makes it a good-sized helicopter carrier, not a fixed-wing aircraft carrier.

Yeah, Turkey's building a JC1, & has talked about F-35B, but so far it's just that - talk, & the official roles are the same as those of the Australian Canberra-class, i.e. helicopter operations, & landing craft using the dock. not fast jets. Maybe one day.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

I included Spain & Italy to mean not current growth, but that they have the capability- the West always does look at it, & now Russia- in their threat projections/matrixes. Having those ships for years doesn't mean that they r totally outdated & can't be upgraded/replaced with more capable ones & given STOVL fighters later. The same goes for SK & Turkey. If Chakri Naruebet is too small for navalised JAS39, how about the J-18? Besides, they'll most likely cost less!
Even having access (which isn't assured at all times) to remote bases doesn't eliminate the need for carriers. As Feanor said: "As for conflicts in remote places, never say never." Imagine a future canal zone in Nicaragua &/ Thailand is threatened!

 

[swerve]

China's doing R&D for a possible future STOVL aircraft - & Chakri Naruebet is (1) too small for the only current STOVL aircraft, & (2) 20 years old already. How old by the time this possible future Chinese STOVL aircraft materialises, if it ever does? And how do we know if it'll fit? Come on, mate! Be realistic. Don't clutch at straws.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Chakri Naruebet isn't being deployed often & doesn't spend long time at sea & thus may/will last decades more. Even w/o it, China, India, Japan, Australia & SK will in not too distant future have total ~ 12 (if not more) big & small a/c carriers in the Asia-Pacific (not to mention 1 RN & 5+ 1 USN!), while Russia currently has none, & even under the best of conditions, it'll take a long time to transit there from Severomorsk.

 

[ngatimozart]

Chakri Naruebet isn't being deployed often & doesn't spend long time at sea & thus may/will last decades more. Even w/o it, China, India, Japan, Australia & SK will in not too distant future have total ~ 12 (if not more) big & small a/c carriers in the Asia-Pacific (not to mention 1 RN & 5+ 1 USN!), while Russia currently has none, & even under the best of conditions, it'll take a long time to transit there from Severomorsk.

Lets get one thing straight, Australia and Japan have no intention of fielding fixed wing carrier aviation. They have not stated that fact at all so please do not continue with that fallacy.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

By the same token, Russia has no rotary wing carriers at all!

 

[Feanor]

By the same token, Russia has no rotary wing carriers at all!

You are correct. Russia has one aircraft carrying cruiser that also carries helos, and a number of VMF ships provide for 1 or 2 helos on board, but Russia has no dedicated helicopter carriers. Russia has however attempted to purchase some from France, and now has publicly stated plans to produce indigenous helicopter carriers.

 

[swerve]

Feanor,
the Mistrals are amphibious assault ships. They carry helicopters for that role. They're in a different category from dedicated helicopter carriers such as Hyuuga & Ise, which are ten knots faster, probably quieter, & have far better sensors & weapons.

Chakri Naruebet isn't being deployed often & doesn't spend long time at sea & thus may/will last decades more. Even w/o it, China, India, Japan, Australia & SK will in not too distant future have total ~ 12 (if not more) big & small a/c carriers in the Asia-Pacific (not to mention 1 RN & 5+ 1 USN!), while Russia currently has none, & even under the best of conditions, it'll take a long time to transit there from Severomorsk.

You are using the word 'carrier' for helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships, ASW helicopter carriers which would need significant modification to be able to operate the only current fixed-wing STOVL aircraft, & a former STOVL aircraft carrier which no longer has fixed-wing aircraft & which cannot practically operate that current STOVL aircraft..

That gives a false impression. Why do you insist on continuing to do this?

In reality, currently exactly two fixed-wing aircraft carriers are owned by countries in Asia & Oceania with two more building, two amphibious assault ships capable of but not equipped for operating them entering service, & two more ASW helicopter carriers which would need adaptation new in service or building.

That's eight potential carriers, but the owners of the last four have not invested in the necessary prerequisites for making their ships usable as anything more than lily pads for emergencies, or stated any intention to make such an investment.

That's the reality: two operational fixed-wing carriers with two more building. Why do you persist in your fantasy? Quoting one of Wikipedia's dodgiest pages in support of it does not add to your credibility, BTW.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Yes, I know the difference between those classes of ships, but in any case, Russia is still outnumbered. And there is no guarantee that later those same countries won't get fixed wing capable a/c carriers, new and/or 2nd hand like China, India, Australia & Brazil got. The USSR itself started from Moskva ASW helicopter carriers to TAKRs & now Russia is planning to build a new 90-100K ton CVN! They & India started with STOVL & progressed to STOBAR. Last, but not least, the intentions can change over time- a good example is China agreeing not to use the ex-Varyag for naval purposes before Ukraine sold it to her. I use Wikipedia for ease of reference, not because I trust it more than the other sites; there r sources listed in the end that any1 can check.

 

[swerve]

There is no guarantee that Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan & the Philippines won't get fixed-wing carriers. So what? Nor is there a guarantee that Mexico won't build a large fleet of long-range submarines & use them to aid the defence of Taiwan, South Korea & Japan. But it's so unlikely that it's not worth discussing.

See what I'm getting at?

 

[Feanor]

Feanor,
the Mistrals are amphibious assault ships. They carry helicopters for that role. They're in a different category from dedicated helicopter carriers such as Hyuuga & Ise, which are ten knots faster, probably quieter, & have far better sensors & weapons.

Sorry, sometimes in my mind I still translate from Russian. I understand there's a difference between ships like the Kiev-class or Hyuga-class ASW helo carriers and the Mistral-class LHDs. In Russian however both would be called helicopter carriers.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

There is no guarantee that Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan & the Philippines won't get fixed-wing carriers. So what?..

But if there a trend with those nations that I listed, then it's more probable that they'll repeat what Russia itself went through in developing carrier borne naval aviation. And some of them could be/ r allied with the West & may help with assets they now/will have should there be a crisis with Russia or her allies.

 

[ngatimozart]

But if there a trend with those nations that I listed, then it's more probable that they'll repeat what Russia itself went through in developing carrier borne naval aviation. And some of them could be/ r allied with the West & may help with assets they now/will have should there be a crisis with Russia or her allies.

Why is it probable? Building carrier capability from scratch takes a lot of treasure and time as the Russians and Chinese are finding out. It's not just the carriers themselves but the escorts including sub surface that are necessary. Carriers are prime targets and much effort will be expended to remove them from the picture, even if it just means keeping them outside the maximum combat range of their strike aircraft which then negates the carriers strike capabilities.

Australia got out of the carrier game because of cost. They had two, Melbourne and Sydney, with Melbourne being the last. It needed to be replaced as did its air wing and the then government decided that the cost was to great. The ship was sold for scrap and the A4G Skyhawks to New Zealand. Canada also had the same class of carrier and it to got out of the carrier game because of cost.

If Russia wants to stay in the carrier game then it is going to have to up its game and invest heavily in the basics such as good quality machinery and ongoing maintenance and training. By good quality machinery I mean that they ensure quality control at the manufacturer and if the manufacturer doesn't like it a spell in the gulag to encourage their cooperation might work. Always training and maintenance - every day chipping and painting, greasing, oiling, inspecting, preventative maintenance. That way you have a reliable fully functioning ship.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

I don't disagree with these points, but in fact Russia will loose more by not having CVN type carriers & their escorts (they r going to keep modernizing the old & build more new destroyers, cruisers, subs, etc. anyway)- so the cost won't stop them. Recall Peter the Great drive to get access to seas & building up modern army & navy over 200 years ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't disagree with these points, but in fact Russia will loose more by not having CVN type carriers & their escorts (they r going to keep modernizing the old & build more new destroyers, cruisers, subs, etc. anyway)- so the cost won't stop them. Recall Peter the Great drive to get access to seas & building up modern army & navy over 200 years ago.

Maybe but apart from Peter the Great Russia has seen itself as a continental land power not as a blue water maritime power and that has been its failing in that aspect. Even the during the Soviet time they still saw the navy more as adjunct of the land forces rather than as a truly global maritime force.

It is about philosophies and national strategic thought at the political and senior defence policy levels. Maritime power cannot be constrained to littoral water boundaries ignoring the global blue water commons. It cannot be welded strictly to land based dogmas and strictures because a true maritime power always will have advantages over a continental power, in that they can manoeuvre and deploy where and when they choose and they aren't necessarily restricted by geographical features. That was where Germany failed during the two world wars whereas Japan mostly succeeded except that it failed in the maritime logistical area which ultimately contributed to its defeat in the 2nd World War. The British had known this for centuries and the Americans learned it during the late 19th Century and excelled at it in the 20th Century.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

All of that isn't new to me. But now they r coming back were the Soviets left off & slowly, but surely progressing to build up their navy to be comparable with that of more experienced maritime powers. China & Japan went, & is still going, trough a similar process. And that's why, having no overseas possessions, Russia needs a/c carriers as they r, among other things, "sovereign pieces of territory". They may even build a floating island or 2, similar to what Jules Verne described!

 

[swerve]

But if there a trend with those nations that I listed, then it's more probable that they'll repeat what Russia itself went through in developing carrier borne naval aviation. And some of them could be/ r allied with the West & may help with assets they now/will have should there be a crisis with Russia or her allies.

If there is a trend.

Australia used to have jets flying off an aircraft carrier, but now has only helicopters flying off two amphibious assault ships, neither of which is equipped to handle jets. What's the trend there?

India's had a fixed-wing aircraft carrier continuously for 55 years. What's the trend there? For nothing to change?

Thailand bought a STOVL carrier & some Harriers 20 years ago. It's hardly done anything & the Harriers are now all retired, so it's relegated to being a helicopter carrier. It can't operate new STOVL aircraft. What's the trend there? For a prestige purchase to decline into near uselessness?

See what I mean? You're interpreting everything as moving in one direction - but it isn't. If you cut down your examples to the real carriers, you might be able to justify a trend, but by claiming that almost everything with a through deck is an aircraft carrier, you damage your argument.

BTW, why didn't you count the Oosumi class? Three Japanese through deck ships, bigger than some WW2 light aircraft carriers - and about the same size as Chakri Naruebet.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Indian carrier development is long, but it's in STOBAR now & moving to CATOBAR, just like Russia & China. Australia isn't there anymore but in Russian calculations any helicopter carrier could potentially be modified to handle fixed wing a/c & therefore is just 1 more carrier that their potential adversaries have. 1 day a VTOL, if not STOVL, fighter may get on board turning it into what they had on the Kiev class TAKRs & now on USN 8 Wasp-class & 11 planned
America class. The same goes for Thailand, SK & Japan. Thanks for including the Oosumi class, but since they got newer & bigger ships I omitted it.