Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers

[Salty Dog]

Just a few links to set the record straight:

Stereguschyy Class Corvette

22350 Gorshkov Class Frigate

956 Sovremennyy Class Destroyer

 

[Firehorse]

Apart from the small minority of indigenous people, that's what their ancestors went there for, & what they make a living from. They want more of it, though not always happy with how it's done.
You seem to think there's something wrong with that. What are you, a racist?

No, the ethnic Russian elite there may want to turn their back at Moscow-if they conclude that there is more to be gained! Look at Algeria under the French!
I'm not a racist- that fact is an indication of political changes that reflect local demographics.
WRT STOVL LHA/CVs, I never said that they are absolutely, 100% going to build them- there is a high possibility of it, given the factors mentioned earlier, even if there are no indications of it yet.

 

[Feanor]

there is a high possibility of it, given the factors mentioned earlier, even if there are no indications of it yet.

An interesting statement. There is a high possibility even though there are no indications...... :roll:

Salty Dog all your links took me to the main page of warfare.ru

 

[swerve]

No, the ethnic Russian elite there may want to turn their back at Moscow-if they conclude that there is more to be gained! Look at Algeria under the French!
I'm not a racist- that fact is an indication of political changes that reflect local demographics.
WRT STOVL LHA/CVs, I never said that they are absolutely, 100% going to build them- there is a high possibility of it, given the factors mentioned earlier, even if there are no indications of it yet.

Again, an irrelevant comparison: even more, one which is almost exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it is. The pieds-noirs were a minority of the population of Algeria (ca 13%), not like the Russians in Siberia & the Far East, who are most of the population, and were facing an insurgency among the Arabs & Berbers who made up most of the population. Again, unlike Russia, & unlike what you posit. The May 1958 rebellion was an attempt not to achieve independence, but against it, i.e. almost exactly the opposite of the scenario you posit, as was (even more explicitly, since France had just agreed to self-determination for Algeria) the failed 1961 putsch, & the OAS.

Personally, I can't imagine the Russian population of Siberia & the Far East deciding they'd be better off run from Beijing (& that's how it'd end up, in fact if not in name, if they were dealing with Beijing as an independent state) than from Moscow. Beijing is too close, there are too many Chinese, & the local politicians & businessmen would rightly fear being squeezed out.

You said there's a high probability of something for which there are no indications, although for it to be possible in the next 15 years, it would have to have already begun. Hmm. Rather a tenuous connection with reality, methinks.

 

[Water-Man]

Russia does have the money now due to OIL. Expect a military build-up.

 

[swerve]

Russia does have the money now due to OIL. Expect a military build-up.

Russias oil wealth cannot, by itself, finance the sort of military build-up being discussed here. The industrial economy would also have to improve. Saudi Arabia exports more oil than Russia, and has a smaller GDP than Taiwan. How many aircraft carriers can Taiwan buy? And Russian oil production is starting to decline. New fields aren't being opened up as fast as old ones are running down.

In 2005, Russia had about the same GDP as Italy. With rapid growth since, it's now about the same as France or the UK. Much less then Germany, half as much as Japan. How many aircraft carriers can any of them afford?

[All GDP estimates at PPP, from the World Bank International Comparison Programme]

 

[Feanor]

France has one. UK has 4. Russia has one. So about right as many as it should be operating. I can see room for at most 2 more in the Pacific, though more likely one of the two will replace the Kuznetsov in the Northern Fleet (if they ever get built that is). Though the Russian economy is growing (fast) right now. If it continues Russia may be able to afford more. Keep in mind China has a huge GDP but no operational aircraft carriers :wink:

 

[AegisFC]

UK has 4.

Enlighten me, what 4 carriers does the UK have?

 

[RubiconNZ]

France has one. UK has 4. Russia has one. So about right as many as it should be operating. I can see room for at most 2 more in the Pacific, though more likely one of the two will replace the Kuznetsov in the Northern Fleet (if they ever get built that is). Though the Russian economy is growing (fast) right now. If it continues Russia may be able to afford more. Keep in mind China has a huge GDP but no operational aircraft carriers :wink:

UK has 2 not 4, one Invincible has been decommed, and HMS Ocean is not a Carrier.

 

[swerve]

France has one. UK has 4. Russia has one. So about right as many as it should be operating. I can see room for at most 2 more in the Pacific, though more likely one of the two will replace the Kuznetsov in the Northern Fleet (if they ever get built that is). Though the Russian economy is growing (fast) right now. If it continues Russia may be able to afford more. Keep in mind China has a huge GDP but no operational aircraft carriers :wink:

As has been said, the UK does not have 4 carriers. It has 3 small, STOVL-only carriers, one of which is in deep reserve pending disposal. The two operational carriers have less tonnage combined than one of the CTOL carriers the Russian navy says it wants. The 5-6 carriers proposed would have roughly 5-10 times the tonnage of the UKs current carrier fleet, or 2-4 times the combined tonnage of the 2 new carriers the UK plans to build.

The UK also has far greater dependence on maritime trade than Russia, & therefore more need for naval strength. The same applies to France, though to a lesser extent. Russia has far longer land borders than France, and those borders are far, far, less secure. Russia therefore has a far greater need than Britain, France, or indeed any W. European state, for strong land forces, & should logically devote a greater proportion of its resources to them, & less to its naval forces.

What is proposed for Russia is therefore grossly disproportionate to Russias means, when compared to other states, & even more disproportionate to its needs & strategic interests.

 

[XaNDeR]

swerve is to some extent right the Russians never focused alot of navy that was the USA , allthough they did focus alot on submarines but that was mostly to counter the US naval superiority of their carriers but also remember they focused alot on AVMF for that task aswell. Russia mostly focused on ground forces and secondly to airforce , navy was the last place they focused on during the cold war.
Though I think that Russia is capable of operating 3 if not 4 carriers , remember the USN has 11 and planning for alot more and those are supercarriers alot more expencive that the one russia plans to do at least so I think , the US budget is also quite smaller if you think about the money needed for Iraq , Afganistan and that alot of the budget goes for pay of the soldiers and officers now if you compare that with the Russian or Chinese officers thats a huge difference, there is also the point that the budget of China and Russia does not include some things such as strategic forces etc. So infact I would say its more likely that the Russian budget or Chinese budget is 4-5 times smaller than the US instead of 8-9 times , also remember that the US budget was alot smaller before bush administration and that did not prevent them from having 12 supercarriers back then , though Im just focusing on the point that if they wanted to as they do I think it would not be as HARD as some people think to have lets say 3 carriers but as swerve said Russia should focus mostly on ground and air and defence instead of power projection , they do not need it.

 

[Feanor]

Russia is indeed focusing on land and air forces. Primarily land. Secondly air. Only thirdly navy. If you look at procurement this becomes obvious.

 

[Firehorse]

NATO Expansion, BMD, The Arc of Instability, piracy, deterioration of their ICBM force, Arctic seabed claims, and overall less favorable geostrategic situation,- all warrant a new naval buildup. IMO, if need be, they are going to open new economic zones & attract more immigrants to finance it!

 

[Morrigan]

This really is quite implausible, the cost implications are... Well baring in mind current Russian naval expenditure, if they built these carriers would they be able to finance actually running and crewing them? And creating and training some fleet air arm from scratch? Then you have the cost of the surface battle group and escorts. Remember there's Russian surface combatants that have been in port for years simply because there aren't enough funds to facilitiate their regular maintenance. They'd have to build half a new navy just to escort the things. Even talking Kuznetsov sized vessels at most, the number of 5 or 6 has me scratching my head.

 

[Feanor]

Consider the recent Mediterranean cruise. Another one is planned later this year. That looks an awful lot like practice for running a CVBG.

 

[Salty Dog]

Consider the recent Mediterranean cruise. Another one is planned later this year. That looks an awful lot like practice for running a CVBG.

I reserve judgement on their full operational capability until the Russian Navy can consistently "cruise" (deploy) their one carrier and escorts. Given years of disuse of their primary assets, I would commend their efforts to get their units underway and complete the cruise together. It must have been a herculean effort to get systems and equipment up and running and I wonder what true percentage of the combat systems were operational. With no discredit, to the Russian Navy, there must have been a huge relief once the cruise was completed with no major incidents, casualties, or broken down ships. At least it was worthwhile to train naval personnel and bring back some pride in the fleet.

 

[harryriedl]

I reserve judgement on their full operational capability until the Russian Navy can consistently "cruise" (deploy) their one carrier and escorts. Given years of disuse of their primary assets, I would commend their efforts to get their units underway and complete the cruise together. It must have been a herculean effort to get systems and equipment up and running and I wonder what true percentage of the combat systems were operational. With no discredit, to the Russian Navy, there must have been a huge relief once the cruise was completed with no major incidents, casualties, or broken down ships. At least it was worthwhile to train naval personnel and bring back some pride in the fleet.

the Med cruise wasn't completly troble free one of the Tender/main vessels broke down in the Med. can't rember what it was called though

 

[Feanor]

Of course. There were huge problems and it was very difficult I'm sure. But if this continues regularly, then it's an indication of preparation to operate full fledged CVBG's.

 

[Firehorse]

Then you have the cost of the surface battle group and escorts. Remember there's Russian surface combatants that have been in port for years simply because there aren't enough funds to facilitiate their regular maintenance. They'd have to build half a new navy just to escort the things. Even talking Kuznetsov sized vessels at most, the number of 5 or 6 has me scratching my head.

Well, they don't really need that many surface escorts- especially if they would carry their own AShMs! Most of the time, and like in the recent exercises, they will be assisted by land based long range AWACS, bombers & fighters - besides SSN/SSGNs!

 

[Dr Freud]

Nah... the planes will carry out ASuW, escorts are there for screening missiles and subs, and if need be, take the hit instead of the carrier.
I think Tu 95 rec is simply ideal to work with a russian taskforce.