Everything Gary said is spot on. To give a couple of examples... Ukraine was offered a pretty sweet deal on upgrading their Mig-29s to SMT standard by Russia but decided to spite them and go to Belarus for their upgrade package. After Gazprom cut of their gas they decided then and there to build new lines to the rich Iranian source. Ukraine and Belarus are running from Russia as FAST as they can.
Russian Navy plans to build 4 new Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter Francis
- Start date
FutureTank
Banned Member
Both Belarus and Ukraine are broke. Military manufacturing is one of the few industries that can generate foreign sales, and so they try. However they are not going to become competition to Russia in this sphere simply because this industry, like other technology-based industries, require sustained research, including basic research, and this takes significantly more cash then currently available. What Ukraine and Belarus are now trading on is the post-Cold War foundation. However this foundation is not being funded because most of it was based in Russia during the Cold War. Initiating this level of research to keep either Ukranian or Belarus manufacturing competitive is currently beyond their (even combined) means.
This issue applies to naval bulding also. While the shipyard in Niklayev may be able to put together a hull, this does not represent a ship-building capability. To build carriers in Ukrain without Russian input would to some degree require participation of system suppliers outside of the FSU, and therefore adopting pricing based on the open market. Can such a deal be brokered in Ukraine, and could it be competitive with other Europeans or South Koreans? I will not say 'no', but I have my doubts.
This issue applies to naval bulding also. While the shipyard in Niklayev may be able to put together a hull, this does not represent a ship-building capability. To build carriers in Ukrain without Russian input would to some degree require participation of system suppliers outside of the FSU, and therefore adopting pricing based on the open market. Can such a deal be brokered in Ukraine, and could it be competitive with other Europeans or South Koreans? I will not say 'no', but I have my doubts.
Ukraine and Belarus are pretty much doing exactly what you say... but so is Russia. Ukraine and Belarus' defense industries have some interesting times ahead as they decide wether to configure industry to NATO standard or keep producing Russian equipment. They will suffer in the interim if they do go the way of NATO but they will then benefit from the R&D collaberation with the West. Considering what you say is true it seems for both Ukraine and Belarus their defense industry future lies with NATO.
Ukriane didn't just build hulls, they also fitted out the ships defensive weapon suites as well. They have the shipbuilding navigation and comms equipment (Belarus) capability to. The only thing they don't have is the actual SSMs and aircraft the aviation cruisers carried. PLAN already has the aircraft and they will probably dump the SSM capability.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Big-E....translating Ukranian and Belarus defence industries into open market participation at their current funding, and given current market environment would take a lot more funding then can possibly come from Pakistan, or even China.
Access to Iran is problematic as Iran's oil production dwindles (and hence their desire for nuclear energy production, and Russia's role in that). It seems to me same applies to China in the long run. I think Ukranian participation in the Pakistani 'deal' can not be considered a long term fource of sustained support for its industry's development.
It seems to me 'NATO' defence market needs another two entrants like a proverbial 'hole in the head'
However 'even if', it seems to me breaking in will be a hard thing to do, and a process that will require partnerships and strategic partnerships at that.
Access to Iran is problematic as Iran's oil production dwindles (and hence their desire for nuclear energy production, and Russia's role in that). It seems to me same applies to China in the long run. I think Ukranian participation in the Pakistani 'deal' can not be considered a long term fource of sustained support for its industry's development.
It seems to me 'NATO' defence market needs another two entrants like a proverbial 'hole in the head'
However 'even if', it seems to me breaking in will be a hard thing to do, and a process that will require partnerships and strategic partnerships at that.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Big-E, its not that I disagree with you, but that the situation is vastly more complex 'on the ground' then it is elsewhere.
For example if a supplier of system X in USA signs a contract to supply to USN, it then assembles a bill of materials required to assemble the system, directs its purchasing people to source components of required specs and commence production. Most such component makers are, or need to satisfy USN/DoD standards of manufacture, and are pretty much predetermined.
It was same in FSU, but not now.
The component manufacturers are all over the place, and many have changed their production to what they can sell, and this does not satisfy previous Soviet Navy standards, and in some cases the NATO standards either. If this affects only say 10% of componentry, the system's performance in question is already compromised, but what if this happens on a greater scale?
This is the every day issue that all FSU engineers have to deal with on daily basis. It is likely that the example you gave is related to this and not Gazprom issue. This is entirely the reason Russian government has retained stake in many producers, and so has Belorus for that matter.
As fascinating as the subject matter (Belarus/Russia/The Ukraine procurement and military sales behaviour) is, it is derailing the "topic de main"
Perhaps one of you (FutureTank/Big-E) could start a new thread and let this one return to centre.... ?
Perhaps one of you (FutureTank/Big-E) could start a new thread and let this one return to centre.... ?
FutureTank
Banned Member
At the fear of Gary taking a stick to me for going into politics :nono
I read the announcement for carriers as follows:
Russians are a bit 'down', and there is nothing like a bit of patriotism to boost the national ego...and carriers have that effect (not for nothing they are named for presidents in US)
So come election time, Putin will go to St.Petersburg to announce commencement of ONE carrier. How long does it take to build a carrier...well, who the hell knows
[back on the thread gf]
If we assume that it will be super carrier size (ie Forrestal Class upwards) then you can probably assume the following:So come election time, Putin will go to St.Petersburg to announce commencement of ONE carrier. How long does it take to build a carrier...well, who the hell knows
- 3-5 years for construction
- 1 year for work up.
If its Midway sized (45,000+ tons) then I'd still argue that it will be a 3 year build.
To all intents and purposes, eitherway, it would almost be a greenfields project.
I think it's longer than that as Ukraine has her facilities at Nikolayev. What yards in Russia proper could possibly build this carrier?
Last edited:
I was kind of hinting at that when I made the "greenfields" comment
I can't think of any at the moment. All current large yards have been compromised and are in a process of detoxification or closure. For some of those sites they are still some 5-8 years away from certification.
I can't see the russians injecting too much into this ATM. In the last 2 years even Australia and New Zealand have funded nuke submarine destruction in lieu of facilities rehabilitation.
All the will in the world doesn't alter the fact that their critical large ship infrastructure has been compromised for a number of years.
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
If they ask me nicely, I am not unreasonable
My understanding though is that the St.Peterburg works would be extended/expanded/modernised (different reports use different words).
My bad, however, I was intentionally avoiding specifics.
I have heard something similar... they did build the Kirovs. But that is a far cry from building Project 1143.5s. Infastructure around the Kola penisula is in terrible shape as is. That has to get priority. I think they are letting Vladivostok rust to pieces. I had the pleasure of spending 48 hours in that **** in 03'. It looked as bad as NAS Alameda where the Mythbusters blow up in their crazy experiments.If they ask me nicely, I am not unreasonable
My understanding though is that the St.Peterburg works would be extended/expanded/modernised (different reports use different words).
There is one slight impediment with building in St. Petersburg and operate in the Northern Fleet. The tub has to get out of the Baltic and back again for repairs.
The real problem of the Russian Navy is not if they can fight on the high seas; but can they leave port?
St.Petersburg is hopeless as a naval port - they will have to ask leave from Finland and Estonia - not to mention what might happen later that day.
The Black sea: As Romania and Bulgaria are tooling up - very slowly - it is a question if they can leave port - let alone get through Bosperus.
The Pacific Fleet is far away from everything. What could the Russian hope to achieve operating in the Pacific?
The Northern Fleet would need a carrier to create the diversion needed for the submarines to slip out under the cover of confusion: we are in reality talking about using a carrier to fight a handfull Danish and Norwegean frigates.
I simply can't see the Russian Navy regaining anything approaching a capability - carrier or not.
The real problem of the Russian Navy is not if they can fight on the high seas; but can they leave port?
St.Petersburg is hopeless as a naval port - they will have to ask leave from Finland and Estonia - not to mention what might happen later that day.
The Black sea: As Romania and Bulgaria are tooling up - very slowly - it is a question if they can leave port - let alone get through Bosperus.
The Pacific Fleet is far away from everything. What could the Russian hope to achieve operating in the Pacific?
The Northern Fleet would need a carrier to create the diversion needed for the submarines to slip out under the cover of confusion: we are in reality talking about using a carrier to fight a handfull Danish and Norwegean frigates.
I simply can't see the Russian Navy regaining anything approaching a capability - carrier or not.
contedicavour
New Member
I've just done some research on what Russia is REALLY building now for its surface ship navy.
- 5 corvettes "20380" with Uran or eventually Onyx SSMs but no AAW
- 1 new FFG "22350" with VLS Shtil and Onyx SSMs => that's a good one
- a 2nd Neustrashimy (15 years after its sistership...)
- some new LSTs
In the meanwhile they are left with 5 Sovremenny and 6 Udaloy and half a dozen obsolete Krivaks.
They really should speed up surface fleet reconstruction instead of making stupid claims about building 4 CVs !!
cheers
The Russians would be lucky to get one CV out after Kutznetsov. I was wondering a while back why the Russians were working so hard on improving su-33 (they even tested Zhuk-MSFE on su-27kub), but now it looks like they were just trying to modify su-33 to sell to China.
contedicavour
New Member
Interesting thanks I didn't know that.
Even supposing they do get their new CV, it risks having to sail with an escort group reduced to a few Akula or Severodvinsk SSNs but almost no DDGs and only 1-2 good FFGs. Or said differently, their CV would be heavily exposed to any determined air attack.
cheers
FutureTank
Banned Member
I think you are still thinking of Russian Fleet as a Soviet Fleet. Why would Finland or Estonia try to prevent passage of Russian naval vessels through their water?
What is the Russian Pacific Fleet so far away from that the US Pacific fleet is not?
Why would the Russians fight Norwegians and Danes?
Russia has disputes with just about everybody and their brother. Norway has to open fire on Russian fishing vessles. Finland and Estonia both have major grievences with Russia. It could turn into a potential powerder keg. The Russian PACFLT is so far away from working infrastructure they are almost non-functional.