Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers

Status
Not open for further replies.

nevidimka

New Member
If the Russian Navy has real plans for 5-6 aircraft carriers this will mean LPD/LHA/Whatever ship configured a la INS Vikramaditya conversion, thus eliminating the need to develop a V/STOL aircraft. Otherwise, there's no chance at all that Russian Navy will procure such a number of carriers.

If they were really serious about this, they would probably contract out the construction to a South Korean shipyard. Russia does have a number of defense co-operation programs with South Korea. Unfortunately for Russian taxpayers the Russian pork-distribution machinery won't permit this.
What are those defence co-op on?

Perhaps they are thinking of bringing back the Ulyanovsk carriers design. It would save them a lot of time on coming up with another design than to just modify an existing one which they already have. Plus the Ulyanovsk can be built in more than 1 dock, if the new 100 000 drydock is taken into account. So if they wanna push it, they could simultaneously build 2 at a time.

Also I'm starting to think that some of these predictions are also based on the projected growth in Russian economic power increase and the country becoming more richer in a decade to support these plans.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
What are those defence co-op on?

Perhaps they are thinking of bringing back the Ulyanovsk carriers design. It would save them a lot of time on coming up with another design than to just modify an existing one which they already have. Plus the Ulyanovsk can be built in more than 1 dock, if the new 100 000 drydock is taken into account. So if they wanna push it, they could simultaneously build 2 at a time.

Also I'm starting to think that some of these predictions are also based on the projected growth in Russian economic power increase and the country becoming more richer in a decade to support these plans.
having the capability of building a civilian ship that large doesn't mean having the capability of a building a military ship that large. Two entirely different entities you are talking about. The Russian naval production in the recent years certainly doesn't suggest that it can accomplish the goals that it's setting.
 

Jon K

New Member
What are those defence co-op on?

Perhaps they are thinking of bringing back the Ulyanovsk carriers design. It would save them a lot of time on coming up with another design than to just modify an existing one which they already have. Plus the Ulyanovsk can be built in more than 1 dock, if the new 100 000 drydock is taken into account. So if they wanna push it, they could simultaneously build 2 at a time.
SK-Russian co-operation seems to include a version of S-300 and purchases of some Russian equipment. Russia has not built a large ship to a new design since Soviet Union. South Korea, however, completed LPH Dokdo to a new design in very short time (launched July 2005, commissioned July 2007). South Korean yards also have quite good reputation building large civilian ships and are expanding their construction knowledge by purchase of Aker Yards, gaining knowledge of various civilian high-end ships (special ships, cruise ships etc).

Also I'm starting to think that some of these predictions are also based on the projected growth in Russian economic power increase and the country becoming more richer in a decade to support these plans.
Yes, but consider that UK is currently building two carriers with annual defense budget of some 41.4 billion Euros. For these two carriers UK will not have either escorts, or, it seems, an air wing. However, UK has allies which can provide the ship at least escorts. Russian annual defense budget is some 27 billion Euros and Russia does not have allies which can provide her carriers any escorts.

IMHO, by making these fantasy projects Russian armed forces and her defense industries are merely hurting themselves. Add the bombastic rhetorics of present adminstration and there's all the makings of a comedy. Although Russian engineers are smart and her soldiers brave they cannot fulfill fantasy projects.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #144
Already happened.....
Do you have a link? I read that it was only being planned in a rather recent rian.ru article.

Yes, but consider that UK is currently building two carriers with annual defense budget of some 41.4 billion Euros. For these two carriers UK will not have either escorts, or, it seems, an air wing. However, UK has allies which can provide the ship at least escorts. Russian annual defense budget is some 27 billion Euros and Russia does not have allies which can provide her carriers any escorts.

IMHO, by making these fantasy projects Russian armed forces and her defense industries are merely hurting themselves. Add the bombastic rhetorics of present adminstration and there's all the makings of a comedy. Although Russian engineers are smart and her soldiers brave they cannot fulfill fantasy projects.
The U.K. military budget hasn't seen a ten-fold increase in the last 8 years. All of these plans are based on the assumption that russia will continue to grow in stature and economic power over the next decade. It's more then understandable that if the Russian economy tanks, due to oil price drop, or another banking crisis, then none of this will ever come to be.
 

Jon K

New Member
The U.K. military budget hasn't seen a ten-fold increase in the last 8 years. All of these plans are based on the assumption that russia will continue to grow in stature and economic power over the next decade. It's more then understandable that if the Russian economy tanks, due to oil price drop, or another banking crisis, then none of this will ever come to be.
Yes, which means that a lot of escorts and other ships will be constructed in timeframe between decision to build the two CVF carriers and their completion.

In Russian case, every ship for said 5-6 carrier groups would have to be built as well. If we take France and UK as an example, without keeping in mind that Russia Armed Forces have more powerful nuclear forces and the budget strength of gravity is in ground forces, the Russian budget to operate 5-6 carriers should be around 120 billion Euros (185 billion USD) by 2020. That would mean about fivefold increase to defense budget.

In addition we have to remember that RN seemingly doesn't even dream about being capable of actually operating two carrier groups, just one at a time, which will be under-escorted and will have an air group if the RN strikes luck.
 

Eeshaan

New Member
Yes, which means that a lot of escorts and other ships will be constructed in timeframe between decision to build the two CVF carriers and their completion.

In Russian case, every ship for said 5-6 carrier groups would have to be built as well. If we take France and UK as an example, without keeping in mind that Russia Armed Forces have more powerful nuclear forces and the budget strength of gravity is in ground forces, the Russian budget to operate 5-6 carriers should be around 120 billion Euros (185 billion USD) by 2020. That would mean about fivefold increase to defense budget.
The current state of Russia's economy & natural resources shows that although this target is hard to acheive by 2020, it is definitely not impossible.

My best guess is that the way things are moving for Russia right now, they may get 5 carriers by about 2025-30.

Again, this is according to the projected Russian economic & military growth for the next few years. The price of oil will be a major factor in this. I'm not sure wether the "arms race" against NATO's modernization and the missle shield is what is causing Russia to make big plans like this though.
 

Jon K

New Member
The current state of Russia's economy & natural resources shows that although this target is hard to acheive by 2020, it is definitely not impossible.

My best guess is that the way things are moving for Russia right now, they may get 5 carriers by about 2025-30.
My impression is that the long-term plan of USN is to have 11 carriers. Currently they have 11 and annual military budget of about 300 billion Euros (460 billion USD). Russian economy has no chance to get a fivefold growth before 2020, even the most ambitious government scenarios talk about 3.2 trillion Euro GDP (5 trillion USD) economy by then. Goldman-Sachs predicts roughly 2 trillion Euro GDP by 2020.
 

Eeshaan

New Member
My impression is that the long-term plan of USN is to have 11 carriers. Currently they have 11 and annual military budget of about 300 billion Euros (460 billion USD). Russian economy has no chance to get a fivefold growth before 2020, even the most ambitious government scenarios talk about 3.2 trillion Euro GDP (5 trillion USD) economy by then. Goldman-Sachs predicts roughly 2 trillion Euro GDP by 2020.
2030 then ? Yes, 5x growth of the budget seems a little hard to digest, but it's not impossible. I don't know, things are looking quite positive for the Russian economy right now. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that Russia's economy and defense spending will soon grow like, or even surpass that of China's, all because of the HUGE amounts of natural resources. We may see an extremely aggresive military expansion in Russia, starting from about 2020.... :unknown
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I have a feeling that Russia's economy and defense spending will soon grow like, or even surpass that of China's, all because of the HUGE amounts of natural resources. We may see an extremely aggresive military expansion in Russia, starting from about 2020.... :unknown
The economy will not surpass Chinas. It is much smaller* & growing more slowly, even assuming that Maddison & Wu are correct, & Chinas official figures overstate GDP growth. Resource-based growth is also more likely to run into limits, & current Russian economic policies act to discourage growth in other sectors. The economy is growing despite policy, not because of it, & policy is becoming more, not less, hostile to investment.

Therefore, unless Russia spends a vastly higher proportion of its GDP than China on the military, with the economic risks that entails, it won't be able to match Chinese military spending.

*2007 about 30% of Chinas economy at PPP, assuming the World Bank/ICP estimate of the size of Chinas economy is correct, & it's more likely to be an underestimate than an overestimate. 40% converted at exchange rates.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #150
The target is to have those carriers operating by 2050's timeframe. In a 40 year timeframe a 5-fold increase doesn't seem as incredible. Let me sum it up this way, and see if anyone disagrees; there are definite steps being made towards having the capability to produce and operate carriers. Until a projected future carrier fighter is developed, and construction of the first ship is at least started, we have no solid indication of whether the plans will happen or not, and if they will on what scale. For example I myself initially ridiculed the plans for 5-6 carriers, but given the timeframe it's not unlikely that possibly 1-2 new carriers, or even a beefed up TAKR (carrying maybe two squadrons of fighters instead of one) enter service. Until 2012-2015 we won't know, as construction of the first ship will not have begun.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Here's a nice read from a few weeks ago. The need for aircraft carriers isn't even mentioned in the current rearmament program to 2016. The chances of any aircraft carrier beyond 2016 looks dim.

Russia's Carrier Weakness

by Andrei Kislyakov
Moscow (UPI) Jul 22, 2008

Soviet military policies never called for building full-fledged aircraft carriers operating multirole warplanes, nor did Russia draft any clear carrier construction program at the turn of the century.

On July 4, Adm. Viktor Kravchenko, former chief of the Russian navy's main headquarters, said the country had to build a carrier fleet in the near future. This call is a reaction to reports of two aircraft carriers being built for the British Royal Navy. As before, Russia is reacting slowly to Western naval successes.

In the early 1970s the Soviet Union could have built a real prototype aircraft carrier. The Project 1160 carrier design would have balanced the Soviet-U.S. naval strengths. The United States had more surface warships and long experience of carrier operations.

Under Project 1160, the Soviet Union was to have built three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with catapult-launched Sukhoi Su-27K Flanker warplanes. The projected carrier force was supposed to operate in conjunction with naval strategic bombers and attack submarines for the purpose of hindering the deployment of enemy carrier task forces.

However, Project 1160 was opposed by an alternative program for building heavy air-capable cruisers -- Russian acronym TAVKR -- supported by Soviet Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov, secretary of the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee from 1965 to 1976 with oversight of the armed forces, the defense industry and security agencies.

TAVKR was an unviable hybrid warship combining the specifications of a heavy cruiser and an aircraft carrier. The Soviet government decision to build TAVKRs also heralded the beginning of a program to develop VTOL/STOVL -- Vertical Take-Off and Landing/Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing -- aircraft.

This was an ambitious task. Such aircraft are notoriously difficult to develop, and the British Aerospace Sea Harrier remains the only effective VTOL/STOVL aircraft to date.

The Soviet VTOL/STOVL aircraft program was a complete failure. In the fall of 1991, a Yakovlev Yak-141 Freestyle plane turned into a fireball after crashing on the deck of the air-capable cruiser Admiral Gorshkov. Fortunately, the program was canceled in 1992.

In the mid-1970s, the government discarded Project 1160, focusing on the TAVKR program instead and impeding the development of VTOL/STOVL aircraft. However, conventional fighters cannot be converted into carrier-borne aircraft, because the latter experience 100 percent to 200 percent greater loads during landing. Consequently, such planes must be designed from scratch.

Nevertheless, Ustinov carried on with the TAVKR program and supervised construction of the Admiral Gorshkov, the fourth warship in the series. It is now being refitted as the Vikramaditya for the Indian navy, highlighting the fiasco of the TAVKR concept, because nobody in the world is willing to pay for such hybrid warships.

Russia's only aircraft carrier currently in service was laid down in Nikolayev, Ukraine, in 1982. Originally called the Riga, the carrier was subsequently renamed the Leonid Brezhnev, the Tbilisi and the Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov.

However, the Admiral Kuznetsov features a steam-turbine power plant with turbo-generators and diesel generators, while all modern carriers are nuclear-powered. It has a limited range and endurance and lacks the steam catapult necessary for carrier fighters. The warship does have a ski-jump in its bow section, but numerous experiments have revealed that catapults are the only way to ensure safe takeoff in any weather conditions, regardless of the plane's weight.

Moreover, the Russian carrier has just a few navalized aircraft and only about 20 experienced carrier pilots.

This year, the U.S. Navy will commission its 10th Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. There are plans to launch the new-generation carrier CVN-78 with electromagnetic catapults and about 100 aircraft, including unmanned aerial combat vehicles, by 2013.

"The state rearmament program until 2016 stipulates no allocations for carrier programs," Kravchenko said. In 2009, the government will approve a concept for expanding the Russian navy until 2050. Hopefully, the document will call for building new aircraft carriers.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #152
The state re-armament program is pretty much inviable as is. Iirc it calls for 1400 T-90's produced, which certainly doesn't look likely. Second off at the end of the article they specifically mention the concept for the Russian Navy to be approved next year. That's the real document to look at (if we get to when it gets approved). Finally the USSR laid down the first Ulyanovks-class aircraft carrier in Ukraine shortly before collapsing. So the TAVKR program only delayed, but did no cancel, the aspirations for a real aircraft carrier.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Agreed. Those TAKRs also taught them about conducting flight ops at sea.
IMO, there is a revival frenzy among the services for more $, and the Navy brass want their piece of the pie. As I said before, it's possible they may build CV/Ns jointly with China. In any case, to have just one carrier mission ready on short notice they would need at least 2-3 comissioned carriers total, and Adm. Kuznetsov will have to be replaced sooner or later.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
I heard this today which is interesting and relates to this pipe dream. Aker Yards have just sold a 70% shareholding in Nikolaev to FLC West. FLC West is owned by the Russian Government. Nikolaev was the yard where Admiral K and Varyag were built and it was where the Ulyanovsk was started. This might make the Russian carrier conspiracy theorists happy.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
BTW, that area of Ukraine is, along with Crimea and the Eastern half, heavily Russified and one day may split from Kiev. Ukraine may join NATO, but then she will be about half the present size.
 

nevidimka

New Member
Also the russified side of Ukraine is the most industrialised and urbanised of all Ukraine. What will ukrainian Ukraine be left with?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #158
Agricultural backwater, contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear fallout.
But then hey can be вiльна Украiна. :D On a more serious note, the NATO question will be it. If the nation doesn't split before then, it won't split at all. Russia could of course raise a territorial pretention to Sevastopol and thus invalidate Ukraine for NATO membership by creating an unresolved conflict for them. ;)
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
The state re-armament program is pretty much inviable as is. Iirc it calls for 1400 T-90's produced, which certainly doesn't look likely. Second off at the end of the article they specifically mention the concept for the Russian Navy to be approved next year. That's the real document to look at (if we get to when it gets approved). Finally the USSR laid down the first Ulyanovks-class aircraft carrier in Ukraine shortly before collapsing. So the TAVKR program only delayed, but did no cancel, the aspirations for a real aircraft carrier.
About the T90's, i read somewhere the other day, that their next generation tank would be at prototype stage or introduced to service next year. Unfortunately i don't remember the source so this information may be wrong.
------------------
The problem with Russia Developing Carriers is probably not so much developing the technology, or even building them, but the training required by the flight deck crew. Who knows, maybe they'll build a conventional CATOBAR carrier one day in the next 10 or 15 years, but if they did that, any future carrier would possibly depend on how their "experimentation" worked out.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #160
The alleged T-95 from UVZ is supposed to be demonstrated this year. However so far we've had nothing new coming in on it, and the factory is busy putting out T-90's for both export and the Russian Army. Time will tell I suppose but it looks like it won't be coming any time soon.

As for the training, again they are building (or apparently have complete as another member posted) the facilities needed for training at least one air crew. And of course there are the pilots from the Kuznetsov.

EDIT: Another issue is of course the aircraft. The Kuznetsov uses modified Flankers, but it really needs to be a dedicated carrier fighter designed to handle a different mission profile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top