Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review
Is there a future for Russian aircraft carriers?
Those following the news from Russia have probably heard that Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (official name: Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), was put into dry dock for major repairs and retrofits. Things did not go well. First, the dry dock sank (it was Russia’s biggest) and then a huge crane came crashing down on the deck. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship killing 2 and injuring more. With each setback, many observers questioned the wisdom of pouring huge sums of money into additional repairs when just the scheduled ones would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time.
Actually, the damage from the fire was not as bad as expected. The damage from the crane was, well, manageable. But the loss of the only huge floating dry dock is a real issue: the Kuznetsov cannot be repaired elsewhere and these docks cost a fortune.
But that is not the real problem.
The real problem is that there are major doubts amongst Russian specialists as to whether Russia needs ANY aircraft carriers at all.
How did we get here?
A quick look into the past
During the Soviet era, US aircraft carriers were (correctly) seen as an instrument of imperial aggression. Since the USSR was supposed to be peaceful (which, compared to the US she was, compared to Lichtenstein, maybe less so) why would she need aircraft carriers? Furthermore, it is illegal to transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus with an aircraft carrier and yet the only shipyard in the USSR which could built such a huge ship was in Nikolaev, on the Black Sea. Finally, the Soviets were acutely aware of how vulnerable US aircraft carriers are to missile attacks, so why built such an expensive target, especially considering that the Soviet Union had no AWACS (only comparatively slow, small and much less capable early warning helicopters) and no equivalents to the F-14/F-18 (only the frankly disappointing and short range Yak-38s which would be very easy prey for US aircraft).
Eventually, the Soviets did solve these issues, somewhat. First, they created a new class of warship, the “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: under the flight deck, these Soviet aircraft carriers also held powerful anti-ship missiles (however, this was done at the cost of capacity under the deck: a smaller wing and smaller stores). Now, they could legally exit the Black Sea. Next, they designed a very different main mission for their “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: to extend the range of Russian air defenses, especially around so called “bastion” areas where Russian SSBNs used to patrol (near the Russian shores, say the Sea of Okhotsk or the northern Seas). So while the Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser were protecting Russian subs, they themselves were protected by shore based naval aviation assets. Finally, they created special naval variants for their formidable MiG-29s and Su-27s. As for the AWACS problem, they did nothing about it at all (besides some plans on paper). The collapse of the USSR only made things worse.
The Soviets also had plans for a bigger, nuclear, aircraft carriers, and on paper they looked credible, but they never made it into production. These supposed “super carriers” would also come with a truly “super” price…
So how good was/is the Kuznetsov?
Well, we will probably never find out. What is certain, however, is that she is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers, even their old ones, and that the US has always been so far ahead of the USSR or Russia in terms of carriers and carrier aviation that catching up was never a viable option, especially not when so many truly urgent programs needed major funding. Did the Kuznetsov extend the range of Russian air defenses? Yes, but this begs the question of identity of the “likely adversary”. Not the US: attacking Russian SSBNs would mean total war, and the U.S. would be obliterated in a few short hours (as would Russia). I don’t see any scenario in which US ASuW/ASW assets would be looking for Russian SSBNs anywhere near the Russian coasts anyway, this would be suicidal. What about smaller countries? This is were the rationalizations become really silly. One Russian (pretend) specialist even suggested the following scenario: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt takes power, thousands of Russian tourists are arrested and the Islamists demand that Russia give full sovereignty over to all Muslim regions of Russia, if not: then hundreds of Russians will get their throats slit on Egyptian TV. Can you guess how an aircraft carrier would help in this situation?
Well, according to this nutcase, the Russian carrier would position itself off the Egyptian coast, then the Russians would send their (pretty small!) air-wing to “suppress Egyptian air defenses” and then the entire Pskov Airborne Division would be somehow (how?!?!?!) be airlifted to Egypt to deal with the Ikhwan and free the Russian hostages.
It makes me wonder what this specialist was smoking!
Not only does it appear that the Egyptians are currently in negotiations with Moscow to acquire 24+ brand new Su-35s (which can eat the Russian airborne aircraft for breakfast and remain hungry for more), but even without these advanced multi-role & air superiority fighters the rest of the Egyptian air defenses would be a formidable threat for the relatively old and small (approx.: 18x Su-33; 6x MiG-29K; 4x Ka-31; 2x Ka-27) Russian airwing. As for airlifting the entire 76th Guards Air Assault Division – Russia simply does not have the kind of transport capabilities to allow it to do that (not to mention that Airborne/Air Assault divisions are NOT trained to wage a major counterinsurgency war by themselves, in a large and distant country). Theories like these smack more of some Russian version of a Hollywood film than of the plans of the General Staff of Russia.
Back to the real world now
Frankly, the Kuznetsov was a pretty decent ship, especially considering its rather controversial design and the appalling lack of maintenance. She did play an important role in Syria, not thanks to her airwing, but to her powerful radars. But now, I think that it is time to let the Kuznetsov sail into history: pouring more money in this clearly antiquated ship makes no sense whatsoever.
What about new, modern, aircraft carriers?
The short answer is: how can I declare that the USN has no rational use left for its aircraft carriers and also say that the Russian case is different and that Russia does need one or perhaps several such carriers? The USN is still several decades ahead of modern Russia in carrier operations, and (relatively) poor and (comparatively) backward Russia (in naval terms) is going to do better? I don’t think so.
Then, there is one argument which, in my opinion, is completely overlooked: while it is probably true that a future naval version of the Su-57s (Su-57K?) would be more than a match for any US aircraft, including the flying brick also knows as F-35, Russia STILL has nothing close to the aging but still very effective carrier-capable USN Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Yes, Russians have excellent radars and excellent airframes, but it is one thing to have the basic capabilities and quite another to effectively integrate them. As always, for Russia, there is the issue of cost. Would it make sense to finance an entire line of extremely costly aircraft for one (or even a few) aircraft carriers?
We need to keep in mind that while Russia leads the world in missile technology (including anti-shipping missiles!), there are many countries nowadays who have rather powerful anti-ship missiles too, and not all are so friendly to Russia (some may be at present, but might change their stance in the future). Unless Russia makes a major move to dramatically beef-up her current capabilities to protect a high-value and very vulnerable target like a hypothetical future aircraft carrier, she will face the exact same risks as all other countries with aircraft carriers currently do.
A quick look into the future
Hypersonic and long range missiles have changed the face of naval warfare forever and they have made aircraft carriers pretty much obsolete: if even during the Cold War the top of the line U.S. carriers were “sitting ducks”, imagine what any carrier is today? The old saying, “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind. Furthermore, what Russia needs most today are, in my opinion, more multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN (like the Yasen), more diesel-electric attack submarines SSK (like the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), more advanced patrol boats/frigates (like the Admiral Kasatonov), more small missile ships/corvettes (like the Karakurt), more large assault ships (like the Petr Morgunov) and many, many, more.
As for aircraft carriers, they are not needed any more to extend the (already formidable) Russian air defenses and in the power-projection role (operations far from Russia), the Russian Navy does not have the capabilities to protect any carrier far away from home shores.
Which leaves only three possible roles:
1) “Showing the flag”, i.e. make port calls to show that Russia is as “strong” and “advanced” as the US Navy. Two problems with that: i) the USN is decades ahead of Russia in carrier operations and 2) there are MUCH cheaper way to show your muscle (the Tu-160 does a great job of that).
2) “Retaining the carrier know-how”. But for what purpose? What naval strategy? What mission? Russia is the nation that made aircraft carriers obsolete – why should she ignore her own force planning triumphs?
3) Prestige and $$$ allocation to select individuals and organizations within and next to the Russian Navy. Since Russia does not have a money-printing-press or criminally bloated budgets, she simply cannot afford the capital outlay either for the Russian Navy, or for the nation of Russia, just to fill the pockets of some interested parties.
Conclusion:
If I have missed something, please correct me. I don’t see any role for carriers in the future Russian Navy. That is not to say that I am sure that they won’t be built (there are constant rumors about future Russian “super” carriers, no less!), but if they are built, I believe that it will be for all the wrong reasons.
The plight of the Kuznetsov might be blessing for Russia. She was a good ship (all in all), but now she should be viewed as an object lesson to (hopefully) kill any plans to build more carriers for the Russian Navy.
Carriers do have a role in this day and age. If you need to bomb some poorly armed brown country they are absolutely super duper. And there are still a lot of them. For anything else, especially those carrier fanboys (I’m a carrier fanboy too) who dream of the next war with Russia or China seeing the next Battle of Leyte Gulf (instead of mutual nuclear obliteration) they are next to useless. China builds its new carriers not to fight the US but protect power against brown countries along the Indian and Pacific ocean, not to fight the US with. At least I hope so. Russia and China can only hope that the US will oblige them by using their carriers to try and attack them. But expecting your enemy to do the truly stupid thing and line itself up as convenient targets is not a war winning strategy. That is how Germany lost two world wars. Now, it may so happen that your enemy did drink its own cool aid, but you can’t expect them to do so. You have to assume some intelligence at least.
Sorry to contradict but China among several reasons of power projection, China does also “build its new carriers to fight the US”. To create area of denial to stop US battle groups from get ting closer to Chinese mainland. And to protect Malacca straight shipping lain as main artery for supplying China. South China sea airport, air base is not big enough to cover and replace air carriers in the whole region.
“Russia and China can only hope that the US will oblige them by using their carriers to try and attack them”
US has the biggest navy and it is unimaginable any US major war without using naval forces and their air support (thus carriers) US would not be capable to fight world powers like Russia and China in conventional war, without using all their resources.
Carriers are extremely vulnerable to anti-shipping missile spam and the Russians and Chinese have that capability. If the US were to use its carriers in the frontlines against those countries they would be sunk. The USN did realize this back during the Cold War, that was why it developed the F-14 Tomcat, a long range interceptor with long range missiles to intercept Soviet bombers before they got into range to launch these missiles. But the USN lost this ability in the 1990’s. End of the Cold War, no more threat of Soviet bombers, no more need of long range fighters. The entire US carrier fighter fleet these days consists of short to medium range F/A-18 fighterbombers, used to bomb brown countries. They even lost their carrier born air tankers like the Intruder and Viking that could be used to extend those flight ranges to any great effect. US carriers need to be within a short range of their targets in order for their aircraft to bomb and without a long range missile like the Phoenix they can’t provide long range air protection to any fleet they are assigned too. They might as well base several USAF wings in Taiwan if they want to attack the Chinese mainland because put any carrier near China and it will soak up cap ship missiles like a sponge.
But even the Chinese carriers currently are glass jawed, because the old Soviet one and its Chinese copy have to launch aircraft with a ski jump. Which means they have to take off on their own power and thus cannot take off with a full loadout in fuel and weaponry. So they too need to be placed in close proximity of a target. Which means they too are cap ship missile sponges. So they too exist only to bomb brown countries.
It is not good when person who writes articles is not well informed on subject. I belong to the people that believe in fact that Russian admirals know better what to do and why, than us amateurs who occasionally think or write on the subject. At the moment Russia is working of successor of Soviet YAK-141 vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Equivalent of F-35B. With jets that have vertical take off there is no need for classical air-carriers and long take off strip. Russian ships have good air defenses in some cases even very good but still the ideal situation for all naval force battle groups is to have “cover” from the air at all times when going against enemy naval force.
So what you are saying is, the Russian navy should forget about constructing and then operating 100,000 ton super carriers and build 20,000 – 30,000 ton LHD’s instead?
If so? I think that makes more sense and certainly far more sense than continuing on with the Kuznetsov with the cost of rebuilding a large floating dry dock and keeping an imperfect ship afloat for another half decade of viable service once repaired.
And where did I say that?! I just talk about their projects I know to exist. It is Russians themselves who are talking about carriers (catamaran like) not bigger than “Kuznetsov” in tonnage but with bigger number of planes than “Kuznetsov” on them. So 40 000 to 60 000 tons tops.
“carriers and build 20,000 – 30,000 ton LHD’s instead”
Like you are saying new “Yak” VTOL will be able to use chopper carriers like French Mistral or similar. And those are comparing to US super carriers very small ships. But they do not exclude classical carriers I have mentioned above. It doesn’t mean that Russians are not playing games with US and NATO with different announcements and articles and hiding real intentions. Russia already has design of 100 000 super carrier identical to US carriers and projected to be built in the future. Project 23000E or “Shtorm”. Why? I have no clue ! They have even offered to India that project.
Russia has one Aircraft Carrier primary projects and it is bigger than the Kuzya: Project 23000 with projected 70 to 100K tons of displacemnt and 80 to 90 aircraft. Tjis is the most realistic one (some R&D and design work has been made) The catamaran project is for 40K Tons of displacement but also 30 Aircraft maximum. so it’s basically another Kuznetsov in terms of aviation. and this one did not have any Design work on it whatsoever. it’s just a dream in someone’s head.
That is not at all what I have asked you! You are actually don’t know the answer and are just bullshiting…Thats’s the proof that the your information about YAK-141 is not true If I knew that you are going to lecture me about things I already was speaking I would NOT ask you anything ! I KNOW ALL THAT and I wrote about that before you so why are you telling me this?!?
“it’s just a dream in someone’s head” You do not know that ! And you are full of it ! ” is the most realistic one (some R&D and design work has been made” You don’t know what is more “realistic” since it is not you who chose or decide!
JUST GO AWAY !!!
Nice arguing. Show me one design for the catamaran. and show me one Source that says it has more aircraft than Kuznetsov. it is you who said “I just talk about their projects I know to exist. It is Russians themselves who are talking about carriers (catamaran like) not bigger than “Kuznetsov” in tonnage but with bigger number of planes than “Kuznetsov” on them. So 40 000 to 60 000 tons tops.” So give me one proof of what you are saying (and not a message in a forum please)
I have seen photo of scaled down model of that carrier. It hardly has much more planes than Kunztsov but if it is 20 000 tons smaller thus much more EFFICIENT !
You DO NOT even follow the news on the subject regularly as I do ! That is why you didn’t see the RUSSIAN version of details on YAK-171 or on that catamaran carrier. Google it I am not going to “find” for you! I am not your personal servant! Here it took me 2 seconds to find some article on carrier ! Tonnage and other details depend on source.
US propaganda bullhorn; “National Interest”on that subject:
History to Be Made? Russia Wants a Catamaran Aircraft Carrier https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/history-be-made-russia-wants-catamaran-aircraft-carrier-105477
NOW GO AWAY !
Exactly no models no design nonothing. just a dream in somebody’s mind. Relayed by media siting “representative of Krylov design bureau Also if we admit it is realistic: it’s 18K tons lighter max (kuznetsov max is 58k and this one minimum is 40k) more realistic being 10K lighter (kuznetsov has standard of 55K vs 45k). which is not more efficient as the kuznetsov has more Air Defense / Anti-Ship capability.
Now what I gave you ,the “Project 23000” is Officially presented by Krylov with a model and different prospect designs (70k tons with standard propulsion or 100k with nuclear) and a characteristics cheat for every possibility and a study of cost etc.
And as long as you are spreading false information I am not going Away. I will not let you mislead readers with your fallacies.
they are not working on a Yak-141 successor
They gave up?! Any recent source of info? Did you get that from Russian source?
They never had such project. when the Yak-141 got cancelled by the soviet Union it was because the technology did not yet allow to create efficient aircraft in VTOL cofiguration. And Russia never considered creating one because there was no money to throw into the R&D work especially when the need for them did not exist: Because the Kuznetsov already had its airwing full with the Su-33s and Russia did not have any Helo carriers. The US does not even have VTOL and is using their STOVL on Helicopter carriers (by the marine Corps for Close Air Support roles) because it is only more efficient than Helicopters and can’t replace standard aircraft (less area/mass for fuel/weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B). In fact the F-35B has the same flight performance (with less speed and way less Weapons usefull load to preserve stealth) with the Mig-29K (shipborne) despite being made 20 years later (first flight 1988vs2006).
You sound like “I know it all” typical asshole. Just stay away from me. I have read few serious articles on JAK-171 revival and it might be a rumor and it might be a tactic to confuse US about Russian choices.
What I am sure of is that guys like you don’t have right answer except one : Look at me I know everything better than Russians !
JUST GO AWAY I am not interested in your point of view!
I am sure you have read. I heard Medvedev in 2008 saying Russia will build an Aircraft carryer before 2020 as it turns out they had no such plans. I said they have no plans. And as always I asked for one proof and here you are saying “I have read…”. See I do not debate on rumors (and if it was a tactic like you said that means I am right in saying they had no plans). Anyways As I said I will not leave you alone spreading fallacies. stop talking nonesense and I will stop correcting you.
“”I have read…”. And what do you expect to hear simpleton?!
“I was there when Sergey Shoygu…” or “Putin told me personally…” or ” I have contacts in CIA and from their sources…” maybe?!? That just shows your level of intellect. You mention Medvedev in feeble attempt to discredit SUPER SOLID Russian media (comparing to Western media propaganda apparatus) In 2008 that was maybe some publicity stunt of his when he wanted to take prime minister office. As prime minister he has ZERO saying what is Russia going to build or not! In Russia president is the boss ! And even so Russian Admiralty has their word in all that also! So you are just talking RUBBISH.
“I do not debate on rumors” Good!!! Than f**k off finally ! Good riddance ! Those were not just “rumors” but serious articles and there was project for (catamaran like) carrier ready also and I saw it . But also even developed projects can be abandoned also like for example heavy missile cruiser “Leader” class. They wanted it, now they don’t ! Than how would you know that? Your brain doesn’t work with nuances ! But since you don’t believe things I say and I can’t be bothered to look for them since I can’t care less to convince you in anything. No point for this to continue. And I do not like you right from the start. Good bye!
Stop saying serious articles about things you invented from your own dreams. There were no such articles as simply there were no such projects. Just provide one link to one such Project. I gave you the number of the Project of the Aircraft Carrier you can see it see the characteristics provided . This is what you get when you search “23000” in the Krylov web site: http://krylov-centre.ru/search/?q=23000 the Project of Aircraft Carrier
Now this is what you get when you search Catamaranhttp://krylov-centre.ru/search/?tags=§ion=&q=катамаран … Some civilian ships and some articles about crimean bridge.
Also this is what you get when you google Yak-171 https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=як-171&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 … Nothing.
So either you invented “reading articles” you just had dreams about them.
As I said I do not discuss rumors I discuss proof and that is proof.
So stop spreading nonesense and fake information and go learn to debate like human beings instead of your meaningless insecure insults that only prove you have nothing to say and just compensate with fould language.
I had it ! NOT READING YOUR COMMENTS ANY MORE!
If Russia had infinite money to waste maybe. It always seemed to me that Russia was keeping their carrier around just to at least some naval aviators in training just in case the technologhy pendulum swung back so they would not get caught off guard. It’s one thing to build equipment but its a very long lead time to train elite specialized crews.
Russia didn’t lose their naval pilot crews or their capacity to fly from carrier.. They can train as much as they need carrier take off & landing on the specially built naval training facility (from the Soviet times) for those purposes. And few years redeployment for “Kuznetsov” crew is not such big period of time.
Correct, No aircraft carrier. Build stable relation with proxy state like in Syria – basically an outpost of extremely motivated allies willing to fight for you – and Angola.
If dollar collapse it will be created a power vacuum identical to that of the post USSR collapse period. And that vacuum will be filled by countries with the strong blue navies and power projection capabilities=carrier battle groups.
Interesting thesis. I do not agree entirely – agreed in your scenario projection of power will be surely important, still I do not believe in aircraft carrier, maybe landing ships on steroids with air component for evacuation of civilians.
What you call “thesis” I call reality. Since we saw it all happening after USSR collapse US & NATO took over the USSR regions of influence.
It is just momentarily that hyper-sonic missiles totally dominate and impose new way of war. It can be so for longer period but also it can change over the night.
Hypothetical example to make my point: If tomorrow lasers make breakthrough in the size and power it will be good bye all kinds of missiles.
P.S. Landing ships are just big bathtubs and as such quite vulnerable.
Russia has two atomic battlecruisers (modernized or being modernized) that more than adequately provide Russian naval presence globally, (don’t require at sea fuel replenishment) couple them with a SSGN (Yassen-M or Borei-K) and a couple of SSN’s and the task force could perform just about any mission the carrier could.
Best thing for the Kuznetsov airwing would be to send it to the Russian far east to bolster up defences in the Russian Pacific and reach a strategic understanding with China to allow the Russian carrier aircrafts (Su-33, MiG 29K) to jointly work with the PLAAN carriers upon joint exercises.
“atomic battlecruisers (modernized or due being modernized)”
You are talking about flagship Kirov “Peter the Great” that is going to be put in overhaul – modernization once other Kirov battle ship-havey missile cruiser is finished
The other is “Admiral Nakhimov” that is about to be overhauled, modernized with among others new weapons like Zircon hyper-sonic missiles (with 180 missile launch tubes in all I think). Nakhimov was due to be finished next year but there are new delays so it is pushed for 2022 to be ready.
” China to allow the Russian carrier aircrafts (Su-33, MiG 29K) to jointly work with the PLAAN”
Why? What would be the purpose? No I don’t think so. No need for Russia to ridicule themselves since China is new in carriers. Russia have no reason to play junior partner to the country that is literally beginner in all that. Also “Kuznetsov” will take another few years to come back ready for action. Naval pilots have training ground for carrier take off and landings in Crimea. They’ll stay in shape
I can think of one useful role for a carrier, but Russia doesn’t need to do it. Building a carrier allows the American MIC to convince Congress and the public that aircraft carriers are still important. So if Russia builds one small mini-carrier, the USA can waste billions on maintaining their own position. However, China is already happy to keep the carrier race going.