Russian Navy plans to build 4 new Aircraft Carriers

[FutureTank]

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.

Fishing disputes exist among many nations, including members of NATO and EU.

Finland and Estonia have disputes, but they know that it will not help to solve them by preventing Russian access to the Atlantic. Do you think NATO will go to war with Russia over Estonia's 'powder keg'?

As non-functional as it may be, RUPACFLT is a part of Russian national defence structure.so I guess its their choice to have one

I just want to be positive about the changes that have taken place since 1991, and that the Cold War will be followed by a Spring in international relations. There were less reasons to fear USSR during the Cold war then was supposed, and I think there is far fewer reasons to do so now.

 

[Big-E]

Fishing disputes exist among many nations, including members of NATO and EU.

Finland and Estonia have disputes, but they know that it will not help to solve them by preventing Russian access to the Atlantic. Do you think NATO will go to war with Russia over Estonia's 'powder keg'?

It was only August of this year that the Russian Coast Guard fired on a Japanese trawler and killed or wounded most of it's crew. With provocative actions like these it's only a matter of time before someone retaliates against her brutal measures.

As non-functional as it may be, RUPACFLT is a part of Russian national defence structure.so I guess its their choice to have one

And if you chose to operate one then it is your responsibility to make sure it is safe and sanitary for those who inhabit the facilities.

I just want to be positive about the changes that have taken place since 1991, and that the Cold War will be followed by a Spring in international relations. There were less reasons to fear USSR during the Cold war then was supposed, and I think there is far fewer reasons to do so now.

It's good to be optimistic but it's not healthy to be dilussional. Russian actions are provocative on a regional scale. Just look at Chechnya, they could have diffused that situation a long time ago. Just look at Georgia, they were on the edge of war for a couple weeks there. Just look at the previous example of the Japanese trawler. Rather than stepping back from a situation they jump straight into the fire. Their is no doubt in my mind that Putin and his camp have nostalgia of bringing back the glory of the Empire. The interest is not in acheiving a democracy but a dictatorship. I bet you 50 quid when Putin is due to step down in 08' he will try to subvert the constitution to remain in power.

 

[FutureTank]

It was only August of this year that the Russian Coast Guard fired on a Japanese trawler and killed or wounded most of it's crew. With provocative actions like these it's only a matter of time before someone retaliates against her brutal measures.

And if you chose to operate one then it is your responsibility to make sure it is safe and sanitary for those who inhabit the facilities.

It's good to be optimistic but it's not healthy to be dilussional. Russian actions are provocative on a regional scale. Just look at Chechnya, they could have diffused that situation a long time ago. Just look at Georgia, they were on the edge of war for a couple weeks there. Just look at the previous example of the Japanese trawler. Rather than stepping back from a situation they jump straight into the fire. Their is no doubt in my mind that Putin and his camp have nostalgia of bringing back the glory of the Empire. The interest is not in acheiving a democracy but a dictatorship. I bet you 50 quid when Putin is due to step down in 08' he will try to subvert the constitution to remain in power.

Do you know the exact circumstances of the incident with the Japanese trawler?

I think maintenance of naval facilities is an internal matter for the state. If there is a threat to other nations there are appropriate means of resolving these issues without considering military action.

It seems to me nostalgia is a part of most national consiousneses
Never say never, but I doubt Putin could bring the USSR back. Do you think everything about USSR was bad? Do you think everything about US is great?
When someone stands close to the 'image' they see the fine detail and distinct colours like black and white. Step back and you will see the whole picture, as well as shades of grey.

As a matter of principle I don't bet...particularly with Pommi money Besides, have you seen the exchange rate

 

[Big-E]

Never say never, but I doubt Putin could bring the USSR back.

If he is proposing four carriers when he can't even dismantle his subs without international aid then I call that dilussional.

 

[FutureTank]

If he is proposing four carriers when he can't even dismantle his subs without international aid then I call that dilussional.

Big-E...its just a public policy announcement!

Have you ever seen a British comedy called Yes,Minister/Yes, Prime Minister? nfloorl:

 

[Big-E]

Big-E...its just a public policy announcement!

And we have to take it at face value... if he didn't want the repurcussions of the announcement then he shouldn't have made it.

 

[contedicavour]

And we have to take it at face value... if he didn't want the repurcussions of the announcement then he shouldn't have made it.

Agree, unless the comment was made for purely internal consumption (I mean for Russian public opinion). With elections approaching (in 2008 IIRC) one of the 2 major candidates to replace Putin is the defence minister. We may end up reading more and more incredible comments in 2007.

cheers

 

[Ths]

I deliberately looked only at capabilities, so as not to involve intentions = politics.
It is axiomatic to distrust any neighbour getting big sticks if they are not aligned and you can excert some measure of control.

You can change politics at the drop of a hat; but can't get operational carriers in 10 years.
So when somebody is talking about getting carriers, you might expect them to be fumbling with their headwear.

It is just basic defence analisys.

 

[Ths]

To the political part:

There is no difference in behavior between The Russian Federation and the Soviet Union. The difference is in mean at their disposal. The Soviet Union ran the continent into the ground, and they are still crawling to get out of that hole that set the nation back to the medieval.

 

[Grand Danois]

I find the prospect of Russia building several large carriers unlikely.

Russia has a land area of 17,075,400 km². Not only that, but it also has a huge land border with numerous countries bordering it.

That should make army and air force the primary services. Russia is at its core a continental power.

IIRC this was reflected in Soviet naval doctrine, that as far as the surface fleet was concerned, focused on protecting the SSBN and countering NATO fleets asymmetrically. No use of large CV's.

Today Russia has a population of 142 million and a GDP (PPP) of 1.6 trillion USD. This is very few people and relatively little cash for defending such a huge country. Naval power projection would be on the bottom of the list of priorities. And this is despite the new oil/gas money, because the manpower is needed elswhere and CBGs would take a huge bite of the Russian defense budget.

The Soviets didn't get around to that kind of naval power projection and Russia doesn't need it either. A SSBN nuc deterrent, SSN's to protect and patrol and a surface fleet to control the EEZ is all that Russia really requires.

Adding four carriers to this, is about political prestige rather than actual need. Because Russia eventually would do power projection via its land borders. Carriers would be a poor cost-benefit calculation.

0.02€

 

[Ths]

Grand Danois: I quite agree with You in Your analysis.
The problem is however: Why does Russia want a fleet, which they so definately don't need?
It is nothing new, at least since Peter the Great they have dreamed of naval dominance.

They have in the course of history build several big fleets. None of them could in any way be said to have benefitted anybody.

It is just one of those things.

 

[FutureTank]

Grand Danois: I also quite agree with you in your analysis.

It is a very well accepted analysis, and a particularly logical one.

However times have changed.

Other people are also interested in CVs, and IF one wants to sell some really 'big ticket' items, what better way to gage interest then to announce one's own building projects?

China, India, and other nations would all be interested in the cheaper CVs. It could be that what the announcement meant REALLY was that Russia intends to revive carrier building capacity, and are open for business
It is likely that Russia itself will find use for one carrier. However with projects like that, commercial sustainment can't be based on a single vessel, so hence the number announced.

Just part of the business

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois: I also quite agree with you in your analysis.

It is a very well accepted analysis, and a particularly logical one.

However times have changed.

Other people are also interested in CVs, and IF one wants to sell some really 'big ticket' items, what better way to gage interest then to announce one's own building projects?

China, India, and other nations would all be interested in the cheaper CVs. It could be that what the announcement meant REALLY was that Russia intends to revive carrier building capacity, and are open for business
It is likely that Russia itself will find use for one carrier. However with projects like that, commercial sustainment can't be based on a single vessel, so hence the number announced.

Just part of the business

Ahem. I guess it is the conventional wisdom - I just don't think it has been mentioned in the thread so far...

The questions are: Would it be sensible to buy carriers from a country that is not fully committed to carriers - even if they are of the 'cheaper' variety? And aren't, say, China and India looking to build their own? What is the market?

 

[FutureTank]

Ahem. I guess it is the conventional wisdom - I just don't think it has been mentioned in the thread so far...

The questions are: Would it be sensible to buy carriers from a country that is not fully committed to carriers - even if they are of the 'cheaper' variety? And aren't, say, China and India looking to build their own? What is the market?

I think you encounter a common issue in history where concepts considered obvious are often left out of historical discussion only to confound historians later

Russia has vast expereince in shipbuilding. Much of the Chinese and Indian navies consist of Soviet built vessels.
Now, considering the expereince with staring domestic AFV production, the degree of complexity with aircraft carriers is significant, and few countries can make THAT sort of investment.

I think Russia is committed to building a carrier, and I think there is a market for 3 other carriers (at least). I don't think they will be in the Nimitz class thogh, but maybe 1/2 the size.

 

[contedicavour]

Russia has vast expereince in shipbuilding. Much of the Chinese and Indian navies consist of Soviet built vessels.
.

That was true, but it remains the case only for submarines and relatively small FFGs.
India has built many more DDGs recently than Russia... and it will soon build indigenous aircraft carrier(s). Besides, after the imported Krivak III, India is on its way to building the P17 FFGs in probably higher numbers than Russia's new type 22350 FFG.
China still relies much more heavily on Russian technology but its several new DDGs and FFGs are gradually using more local technology...
So in summary unless Russia restarts significant surface fleet programmes, it risks losing a lot of its R&D edge and even a lot of its main export markets.

cheers

 

[Rich]

Russia has vast expereince in shipbuilding. Much of the Chinese and Indian navies consist of Soviet built vessels.
Now, considering the expereince with staring domestic AFV production, the degree of complexity with aircraft carriers is significant, and few countries can make THAT sort of investment.

All very true. However the proposed Russian carrier force would be a fairly radical change for them. In equipment, support, aviation, and most of all doctrine. Past Soviet carriers were defensive in nature and had missions and aircraft tasked solely with control of airspace over the offensive components of the Soviet navy. Mostly their submarine force.

Even the Kievs reflected the conflict in the Soviet navy and leadership about exactly what they wanted a carrier to do. In the Yak-38 it carried only small numbers of a VTOL aircraft that wasnt very good, and in the end the Soviets probably figured out they could have spent a whole lot less on a regular hull to fire missiles from. The Kievs, and accompanying systems, just weren't very good investments.

They knew 30 years ago they needed to build the Orel class if they were serious but instead they built the Kuznetsov. A bigger carrier with better aircraft, but still, primarily air defense as its to small to launch strike aircraft with meaningful loads and has no catapults. The Kuznetsov again reflects indecision and lack of enthusiasm in Soviet leadership. Hard to understand especially considering the impact carriers have had in offensive roles from 1939 on. They started/stopped again in the late 80's with another Orel type design. Again showing a continued pattern of "less then enthusiastic" regarding super carriers. In fact their entire history is full of starts/stops with almost each new transfer of power.

And with todays realities?? As has been mentioned todays realities are even worse for the Admirals who continue to dream about a 80,000 ton carrier. If they really wanted one it would have happened in the 70s. To build the things, train the crews, build the infrastructure/basing, provide the escorts, develop the doctrine to fight them.??? Its a task the Russians would only undertake if they thought it critical to their defense, believe in the strategy of the offensive strike carrier, and have a leadership united behind it.

History tells us they never have. Not even in the days of Empire. I dont think we will ever see a Russian super carrier.

 

[Manfred]

I was wondering what had happened to the SU-33. Twin-tailed Vtol fighters was a development that seemed (by me) to attract little notice.

If I had to bet, I would say that if the Russians are really building 4 carriers, one will stay in Russia. The other three will go to China, and components for another might go to India, or possibly Iran or Indonesia.

I am gong way out on a limb here, but maybe catapults are becoming obsolete? Now that F-18s are the high-preformance leaders in the US navy, how important can conventional aircarft be for the next generation? AWACS and AWS functions are being filled by machines that have very long ranges. Aside from local strikes and air superiority, what does that leave for Carriers?

 

[Rich]

If I had to bet, I would say that if the Russians are really building 4 carriers, one will stay in Russia. The other three will go to China, and components for another might go to India, or possibly Iran or Indonesia.

No disrespect here but the only evidence Ive seen in this thread has been a single Wikipedia article. I repeat that this carrier has been a Russian dream for over 30 years. And whatever they say now there is going to be a transfer of power shortly and the man who replaces Putin may not share his predecessors wishes for such expensive systems like a super carrier.

Iran is a gun boat navy. Can you really see them operating a 80,000+ ton super carrier? And even if they did where would they base it? Where would they send it? And how would they defend it? You dont buy 80,000 ton carriers to put in the Persian Gulf.

Indonesia is a frigate navy, and a rusty one at that. Again what would they do with a super carrier? And how would they afford it? They have just started an expensive program to upgrade their frigates, submarines, and corvettes. India and China make more sense but both have significant ship building industries and both have expressed their desire to build their own carriers. I will add that neither wants their carrier fleet to be dependant on a foreign power. Thats why they both build foreign systems in their own factories on contract. India has been on the verge of building their new VSTOL carrier for 10 years but have never gotten around to starting it. I'd say China is the only possibility and even they want to build their own, which is why they purchase old ones to study.

Aside from local strikes and air superiority, what does that leave for Carriers?

An airbase you can move around at 30 knots? Sounds like a plan to me, and one as sound now as it was in 1939 when the Brits were fearful of a fleet at Taranto changing the balance of power in the med. The more recent examples would be the significant contributions carrier aircraft made in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf.

 

[Ths]

Rich: Concerning Iran and Indonesia. There is a small aspect of operating fighter/attack aircraft AT ALL.

 

[FutureTank]

New design

It sems to me that in consiodering the possibility of Russia building multiple carriers almost inevitably means sale of some to international clients.

As pointed out, both China and India have shipbuilding industries.

However the maritime combat now, or in future is not for the faint-hearted. Even the USA recognises that protecting a carrier is becoming more difficult and very expensive. It is after all a very large target in a precision guided world.

So what can Russia offer on the market that others can't build for themselves?
Russians are known for innovative and unusual approaches to engineering. Although they are not averse to borrowing from others, their designs had challenged NATO during the Cold War, and will probably continue to do so in future.

There are several designs that they can explore which, I am surprised to say, have nopt been suggested in public to have been considered for US future carrier design.

These are the 'iceberg', the catamaran and the 'butterfly' designs, any one of which would offer a reduction in the physical signiature or greater stealth in general for smaller carriers that would make even Iran capable of operating such a vessel with lesser level of support form the task force vessels that need to accompany the carrier.